panels have established the passive holding of a domain name does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services By apparently failing to use the disputed domain name in connection with an active website Respondent clearly has not used

also is well settled that the passive holding of domain names is not a barrier to a finding of bad faith if sufficient other indicia of bad faith are present including circumstances which are present in this case such as a famous trademark being

in Turkey d The Respondent s passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name constitutes bad faith as it deprives the Complainant from being able to legitimately reflect its REHAB trade mark in a corresponding domain name e The use of a proxy service

us-boehringer-ingelheim.com passive holding the disputed domain name is also being used in bad faith by the Respondent The Complainants trademark BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM has a strong reputation and is widely known The Respondent has provided no

domain name Evidence of passive holding of a domain name has been held under some circumstances to constitute use in bad faith Failure to meet paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy while holding a domain name passively would be regarded as evidence

appear to have ever done so Passive holding of a Domain Name is a basis for finding lack of legitimate interests or rights in the Domain Name Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name and the Complainant has never authorised or licensed

�被投诉人被动持有 passive holding � � 5 � 事人双方主张 A 投诉人 投诉人主张争议域名与投诉人享有权利的商标相同或混淆�

found that the concept of passive holding may apply even in the event of sporadic use In this case the Panel concludes that the following cumulative circumstances are indicative of passive holding in bad faith the well-known and distinctive

contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith The panel must examine all the circumstances of the case to determine whether the respondent is acting in bad faith Examples of what may be cumulative

which is characterized as passive holding The Panel notes that the apparent lack of so-called active use of the disputed domain names does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclerar Marshmallows WIPO Case

panels have decided that passive holding of a disputed domain name can satisfy the requirements of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy and that in such cases the UDRP panels must give close attention to all the circumstances of respondent

panels have held that the passive holding of a domain name can still meet the requirements of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy The reproducing of a famous trade mark in a domain name in order to attract Internet users to an inactive website

in considering whether the passive holding of a domain name following a bad faith registration of it satisfies the requirements of paragraph 4 a iii the Administrative Panel must give close attention to all the circumstances of the Respondent s

The Respondent s more recent passive holding of the disputed domain name does not preclude a finding of bad faith registration and use taking into account among other factors that the Respondent upon being contacted by the Complainant sought to

contends that the Respondent passive holding proves bad faith registration and continued bad faith use As an additional circumstance of bad faith the Complainant informs the Panel that it sent cease and desist letters to the Respondent by email on

domain name sometimes called passive holding is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services by means of nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name as provided in Policy Paragraph Paragraph 4 c i and iii On the point see

which it did in bad faith Passive holding of a domain name can constitute use in bad faith especially when the trade mark in question is famous which is the case in this instance This is a case where the Respondent s activities constitute bad

site to the Respondent site Passive holding does not preclude a finding of bad faith Reproducing the Complainant famous LANC� ME trademark in a domain name to attract Internet users to an inactive web site cannot be regarded as fair use or use in

domain name resolves to a passively held page with links related to the Registrar s activities The passive holding of a disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of use in bad faith See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows

Panel s view their continued passive holding of it represents ongoing bad faith use given the way they have previously used the Disputed Domain Name in the light of the filed evidence there is no legitimate good faith use the Respondents can make