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

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

in support of that claim The passive holding or non-use of domain names is in appropriate circumstances evidence of a lack of rights or legitimate interests in the domain names see Red Bull GmbH v Credit du Léman SA Jean-Denis Deletraz WIPO Case

as accepted authority that passive use of a disputed domain name can constitute use in bad faith and sets out the circumstances enumerated by the panelist as constituting bad faith use by the respondent in that case 5.A.13 Complainant advances

contact the trademark holder passive holding Consensus view With comparative reference to the circumstances set out in paragraph 4 b of the UDRP deemed to establish bad faith registration and use panels have found that the apparent lack of

disputed domain names for its passive websites amounts to use in bad faith As established in a number of cases for example Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 an apparent lack of active use of a domain name

than parking it Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name Furthermore it has not responded to the Complaint in order to offer any explanation for its selection of the disputed domain name It has long been generally held in UDRP

the domain name is an act of passive holding which prevents the Complainant from using the rights conferred by its marks In this regard the WIPO administrative panel held that The particular circumstances of this case which lead to this conclusion

fees and iii the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions Although this Panel is aware that the Respondent is not obliged to participate in a proceeding

the present circumstances the passive holding of the disputed domain name should be considered as an act of bad faith In view of the above the Panel therefore considers the requirement of paragraph 4 a iii to be met 7 Decision For the foregoing

the opinion that the current passive holding of the disputed domain name and its prior use by the Respondent amounts to bad faith use by the Respondent Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 After examining all

�被投诉人被动持有 passive holding � � 5 � 事人双方主张 A 投诉人 争议域名与投诉人商标混淆� �相似� �争议域名的主� 部分与投诉人享有在先权利的商标�'�商号完全相同�

disputed domain name is being passively held Passive holding of the disputed domain name coupled with the fame of the Complainant trademark and the Respondent´s default evidences bad faith It has long been generally held in UDRP decisions that the

contends that Respondent is passively holding pages since each website says website coming soon See Compl at Attached Ex 4 Past Panels have found the passive holding of domain names not to evidence a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a

an active website amounts to passive holding of the disputed domain name which does not create rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad

domain name However such passive holding of the website does not prevent the Panel from finding registration and use in bad faith The Panel also notes that Respondent undeveloped use of the website at the disputed domain name which

contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as such 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 Such conclusion is as well reflected by

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

The Respondent s current passive holding of the disputed domain name as it is pointing to a registrar holding page constitutes in the circumstances of this case strong evidence of bad faith particularly in view of the fact that the Complainant

the disputed domain so-called passive holding as set forth in the landmark decision Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The Panel therefore finds that paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy has been satisfied 7