have long established that passive holding of a domain name entirely incorporating a trademark having a strong reputation amount to bad faith registration and use within the meaning of the third limb of paragraph 4 a The current consensus view

showing the contrary the passive holding of a domain name does not constitute a legitimate noncommercial fair use In this case the Respondent did not show any demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona

the Disputed Domain Names The passive holding of segawayboard.com likewise does not give rise to any rights or legitimate interests Thus it appears that Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Names under paragraph

indicative of bad faith The passive holding of the disputed domain name is also evidence of bad faith registration and use Further the Respondent has registered more than 70 domain names many of which include the trade marks of third parties e.g

in UDRP decisions that the passive holding of a domain name that incorporates a well-known trademark without obvious legitimate purpose will be deemed to be bad faith use pursuant to paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy Telstra Corporation Limited v

Text Further Respondents passive holding also would constitute Bad Faith registration and use See Complaint page 2 Explanatory Text Respondent concedes knowledge of Complainant s commercial operations by the name of the domain and the use

are currently inactive their passive holding does not preclude a finding of bad faith given that the KERASTASE and REDKEN trademarks have a strong reputation and are widely known that the Respondent has provided no evidence of any actual or

inativa de nome de domínio passive holding O Reclamado escondeu-se atrás do nome Dasdasdada o que configura manobra para proteger sua identidade Tendo em vista o acima exposto a Reclamante alega que resta clara a conduta de má-fé do Reclamado

other but to find that the passive holding of two further disputed domain names by the same Respondent need be considered to constitute bad faith and 3 all of the disputed domain names were registered almost sixty years after Complainant started

by a hosting company Such passive holding appearing intended to create an association with the Complainant trademarks without any obvious legitimate noncommercial or fair use purpose constitutes opportunistic bad faith use as has been made

of a domain name followed by passive holding when there is no way in which the domain name could be legitimately used can amount to bad faith use of a disputed domain name See Statoil ASA v Creative Domain Pty Ltd / Christine K Hoyer WIPO Case No

of a domain name followed by passive holding when there is no way in which the domain name could be legitimately used can amount to bad faith use of a disputed domain name See Statoil ASA v Creative Domain Pty Ltd / Christine K Hoyer WIPO Case No

DECISION Volvo Trademark Holding AB v Case No D2016-0670 1 The Parties The Complainant is Volvo Trademark Holding AB of Gothenburg Sweden represented by Wallberg IP Advice Denmark The Respondent is of the United States of America United States

asserts that the Respondent passive holding of the disputed domain names olxinfo.info olxinfo.net and olxinfo.org constitutes bad faith registration and use B Respondent The Respondent did not submit a formal reply to the Complainant contentions

passive holding 域名亦可能� �属于恶意使� �的情形� �原争议域名的注册人除注册本案的争议域名外，� 注册了另� 个域名 louisxiii.news � �在�

bona fide use of it and is passively holding the disputed domain name in circumstances that it is not entitled to be the registrant of the domain name under the 2012-04 Domain Name Eligibility and Allocation Policy Rules for the Open 2LDs the

PANEL DECISION Eastern Holdings Limited v Faisal Riaz Case No D2016-0784 1 The Parties The Complainant is Eastern Holdings Limited of Edinburgh Scotland the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland UK represented by Pinsent

of the Policy despite such passive holding based on the totality of the circumstances See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The disputed domain name has moreover been used to host what appear to be

been established that the passive holding of a domain name may under certain circumstances constitute bad faith use within the meaning of paragraph 4 a of the Policy The WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions Second

�两被投诉人消极持有 passive holding � � 5 � 事人双方主张 A 投诉人 两投诉人主张，� � 立即将两被投诉人注册并正在使� �的两争议域名转移给两投诉人� �理� �如下：