circusmtances the current passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith use In view of the above the Panel finds that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith in

is engaging in inactive holding of the disputed domain names See Compl at Attached Ex 7 Complainant alleges that Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain names supports findings that Respondent is using the altriamedicalfarms.com

this Panel finds that the passive holding of the disputed domain name by the Respondent amounts to the Respondent acting in bad faith The particular circumstances of this case which lead to this conclusion are as follows i the Complainant s

of the true Respondent c the passive holding by the Respondent of the disputed domain name d the obvious confusion to Internet users caused by the disputed domain name B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6

argues that the Respondent s passive holding of the Domain Name does nevertheless amount to bad faith use of the Domain Name The Complainant claims that the Respondent hacked into one of the Complainant area manager s computer and in February of

a parking page akin to being passively held does not prevent a finding of bad faith It has long been generally held in UDRP decisions that the passive holding of a domain name that incorporates a well-known trademark without obvious use for an

contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith paragraph 3.2 WIPO Overview 2.0 The WIPO Overview 2.0 further states The panel must examine all the circumstances of the case to determine whether the

agreement The current passive holding does not mean that the disputed domain name is held in fair use and that it is used without bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings

Case No D2000-0003 that the passive holding of a domain name by a respondent amounted to the respondent acting in bad faith The Complainant also alleges that TRTL is a distinctive mark which no other business is trading under In the circumstances

Although the evidence shows passive holding of the CIPRO Domain Name at the time of filing of the Complaint the particular circumstances of this case and the evidence submitted by the Complainant of the Respondent other domain name registrations

is correctly characterized as passive holding While passive holding by itself may be a legitimate activity doing so does not confer any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name Paragraph 4 a ii of the Policy requires the Complainant to

refers to panel decisions holding that passive holding or non-use of a domain name is evidence of a lack of legitimate rights in a domain name With respect to the issue of bad faith registration and use Complainant asserts that Respondent by

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

bobcat domain names finding passive holding to be bad faith use as any future use of such domain names would remain confusingly similar to the BOBCAT mark Such misuse of a domain name is clear evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant

to an active website Such a passive holding of the disputed domain name under these circumstances constitutes bad faith use Telstra Corporation Ltd v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The Complainant has meet its burden of proof under

fide goods or services The passive holding of the disputed domain names under these circumstances constitutes bad faith use Telstra Corporation Ltd v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The Complainant has met its burden of proof under

in 2015 and points to a holding page The Respondent did not respond to this Complaint 5 Parties Contentions A Complainant The Complainant contentions can be summarized as follows The Complainant is one of the leading hotel and leisure

resolves to an inactive page passive holding can amount to bad faith as has repeatedly been decided by UDRP panels Reproducing famous trademarks in a domain name in order to attract Internet users to an inactive website cannot be regarded as fair

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

�被投诉人消极持有 passive holding � � 5 � 事人双方主张 A 投诉人 投诉人主张，� � 立即将被投诉人注册并正在使� �的争议域名转移给投诉人� �理� �如下： 除去� �� �顶级域名 news