has submitted that the passive holding of the disputed domain name amounts to use of the disputed domain name in bad faith According to paragraph 3.2 of the WIPO Overview 2.0 the consensus view of panellists it that passive holding does not

previous UDRP panels is that passive holding in itself does not preclude 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 see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel

website or location The passive holding of a domain name can constitute bad faith use especially when combined with other factors such as the respondent preventing a trademark or service mark holder from reflecting its mark in a corresponding

the disputed domain name the passive holding of the disputed domain name and the Respondent failure to answer the Complaint the Panel draws the inference that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith Accordingly

the disputed domain name the passive holding of the disputed domain name and the Respondent failure to answer the Complaint the Panel draws the inference that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith Accordingly

PANEL DECISION Tetra Laval Holdings & Finance S.A v سیدمحمدحسین رضوی پور Case No D2016-0474 1 The Parties The Complainant is Tetra Laval Holdings & Finance S.A of Pully Switzerland represented by Valea AB Sweden The Respondent

Aug 30 2000 finding that passive holding of a domain name evidences both bad faith registration and bad faith use Clerical Med Inv Group Ltd v Clericalmedical.com D2000-1228 WIPO Nov 28 2000 finding that merely holding an infringing domain

WIPO Sept 24 2010 citing TPI Holdings Inc v AFX Communications D2000-1472 WIPO Sept 2 2001 While none of the Disputed Domain Names includes sucks they include pejorative terms such as lawsuits and recall with attorney intended to entice Internet

a Registrar parking page passive holding since its registration Given the notoriety of the Complainant's trademark it seems impossible for the Respondent to use the domain name in good faith see similar considerations on bad faith and passive

empty website is considered passive use the passive holding of the disputed domain in the context of the surrounding circumstances and in the light of the decision of the panel in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No

�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，� � 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：

Global Information Resources Holding Company HongKong Limited the Registrar 3 Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center the Center on February 11 2016 The same day the Center transmitted by email to

2.0 supports the view that passive holding of a domain name pointing to an inactive site might well be a sign of bad faith particularly in circumstances where as here Complainant has a well-known mark that Respondents have misappropriated and

fide goods or services 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 met its burden of proof under

Complainant states that the passive holding by the Respondent must be considered as use in bad faith In addition the Complainant underlines that email servers have been activated for the disputed domain name which means that the Respondent could

submits that the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name does not preclude a finding of bad faith Additionally the Complainant submits evidence that it sent a cease and desist letter and follow-up emails to the Respondent in

2.0 summarising the matter of passive holding at paragraph 3.2 reads in part 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 circumstances found

to the Complainant a passive holding of a domain name does not preclude a finding of bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings Paragraph 15 a of the Rules instructs the

has long established that passive holding of a domain name entirely incorporating a trademark having a strong reputation may amount to bad faith registration In determining whether a respondent is acting in bad faith prior cases such as CBS

connected to any web site The passive holding of a domain name with knowledge that the domain name infringes another party trademark rights is evidence of bad faith registration and use The risk of a wrongful use of the disputed domain names is