The Panel first notes that passive holding does not preclude a finding of bad faith see Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Consequently the Panel must examine all the circumstances of the case to determine

valuable consideration The passive holding combined with an offer to sell the domain name to the highest bidder is likely to cause irreparable prejudice to the Complainant s reputation and goodwill as Internet users may be led to believe that

that this was also a case of passive holding Further the Complainant points to the sponsored links on the landing page at the disputed domain name and submits that this is a case that falls within Policy paragraph 4 b iv Finally the Complainant

passive holding 状� �� �� � 5 � 事人双方主张 A 投诉人 投诉人认为争议域名与投诉人� 拥有权利的商标相同或混淆� �相似� � 投诉人进� 步辩称，此前，�

information equivalent to passive holding of the disputed domain name which was held to be evidence of bad faith use in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The Complainant also asserts that its SINGAPORE

PANEL DECISION Eczacıbaşı Holding A.Ş v Ali Haydar Bayındır Case No D2016-0041 1 The Parties The Complainant is Eczacıbaşı Holding A.Ş of Istanbul Turkey represented by BTS & Partners Turkey The Respondent is Ali Haydar Bayındır of

contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 the circumstances identified in paragraphs 4 b i ii and iii can be found in

of the Respondent and that passively holding a domain name can constitute a factor in finding bad faith registration and use Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 In this case says the Complainant the

largely relies on the passive holding doctrine set forth in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 That case said that an inactive website as here can indicate bad faith after evaluating the following

correctly observes that such passive holding of a domain name can under certain circumstances nevertheless constitute bad faith those circumstances do not appear to be applicable here For example the BAUR trademark registration on which

The Panel further finds that passive holding of disputed domain names also supports findings that the domain names were registered and held passively in bad faith Respondent makes no contentions relative to Policy Paragraph 4 a iii The Panel finds

for sale and the present passive holding of the disputed domain name supports a finding of registration and use in bad faith for the intention of selling the disputed domain name B Respondent The Respondent requests the denial of the Complaint

contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith Examples of what may be cumulative circumstances found to be indicative of bad faith include that no response to the complaint has been filed and the

�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�

Under some circumstances such passive holding of a domain name can establish a lack of rights or legitimate interests As set forth in the landmark case Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 the following

4 a i See Janus International Holding Co v Scott Rademacher WIPO Case No D2002-0201 finding that the registration of a mark is prima facie evidence of validity which creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently distinctive The

s overall behavior such passive holding does not result in use in good faith Finally the Complainant asserts that it is likely that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name to prevent the Complainant from using its Trademark in a

with active websites Passive inactivity with respect to a domain name is considered to be in bad faith Passive holding of a domain is even more likely to be considered in bad faith when Respondent s registration of the domain also prevents

No D2009-1529 noting that passive holding of a disputed domain name does not constitute a legitimate use of such a domain name that would give rise to a legitimate right or interest in the name The Complainant submits that the Respondent

this situation as a passive holding of the disputed domain names Such passive holding of a domain name may be interpreted as of bad faith registration and use in the terms of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy The Panel finds the following