�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它的商标相同或混淆� �相似� �� �� �顶级域名并不能将容� 混淆的域名与被投诉人的商标区别� 来� �

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

trademark and subsequent passive holding of such a domain constitute bad faith Moreover the Complainant proved that the Respondent is the owner of over 4.600 domains including well known third parties trademarks it has no legitimate rights or

trademark and subsequent passive holding of such a domain thus preventing the trademark holder from registering such a domain constitute bad faith The Respondent has not submitted any evidences confirming circumstances listed in URS Procedure

name has not been used the passive holding of a domain name has been held to be use in bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not respond to the Complainant contentions 6 Discussion and Findings 6.1 Language of the Proceeding The language of

domain name and iv the passive holding of the disputed domain name Moreover the Panel also notes that it is understood that when proceeding to the registration of a domain name paragraph 2 of the Policy implicitly imposes a good faith effort

according to the principle of passive holding which has developed under the Policy over many years The relevant factors first set out in the case of Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case D2000-0003 apply here see also

that the Respondent s current passive holding of the disputed domain names does not militate against a finding of bad faith B Respondent The Respondent asserts that the disputed domain names were registered in anticipation of the birth of his

Name which the Respondent is holding passively was registered long after the Complainant established its rights in its NHL trademark Such passive holding does not constitute a bona fide or legitimate business use or a legitimate noncommercial or

the Telstra case where passive holding of a domain name has been held to amount to bad faith use 5.A.8 Specifically Complainant again cites the decision in Volkswagen AG v Whois agent Whois privacy Protection Service Inc /Edwin Davidson

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

it Further the current passive holding of ritalineurope.com does not give rise to any rights or legitimate interests Further it cannot be inferred that Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names

purports that Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain names is evidence of their use in bad faith B Respondent Respondent contends that Complainant has not submitted sufficient evidence to establish common law trademark rights in the

Respondent registered and is passively holding the Domain Name in bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant contentions 6 Discussion and Findings As a preliminary matter the Panel finds in its discretion to do so under

that Respondent currently passively holds the disputed scansource group.com domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy Paragraph4 a iii See DCI S.A v Link Commercial Corp D2000-1232 WIPO Dec 7 2000 concluding

active use of a domain name passive holding does not in appropriate circumstances prevent a finding of bad faith See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions Second Edition WIPO Overview 2.0 paragraph 3.2 Telstra Corporation

fair use of it but is instead holding it in an inactive condition Passive holding of a domain name which is substantively identical and therefore confusingly similar to a UDRP complainant s mark does not demonstrate either a bona fide offering of

I n 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 Telstra factors regarding passive holding The Panel finds that the two cases cited by the Complainant are materially different to the present case In Telstra the Panel considered several circumstances before finding bad faith Unlike in Telstra

also assert that Respondent s passive holding of the Domain Names is itself bad faith use in view of the renown of the LUXURY COLLECTION marks and absence of likely legitimate uses by an unauthorized party like Respondent Complainants refer to the