date Respondents set up a holding page referring to Sports Direct Trainers and a website which states it is launching soon Complainant submits the holding page is an attempt to give the misleading impression of a legitimate use but there is no

to consider the current passive holding of the disputed domain name shellvietnam.com as use of the disputed domain name in bad faith The Panel accordingly finds that the Complainant has satisfied the dual requirement of paragraph 4 a iii of

the disputed domain name The passive holding of the disputed domain name is an additional bad faith indicator B Respondent The Respondent took position on the language of the proceedings but did not otherwise reply to the Complainant contentions 6

to a landing page the passive holding of a domain name which has no other legitimate use and clearly references the Complainant trademark may constitute registration and use in bad faith see also the leading case Telstra Corporation Limited

bad faith registration and passive holding of disputed domain names are present on the facts of this case They are 1 that Complainant WECHSLER marks have a strong reputation and are widely known in the areas in which they are used 2 that there

is inactive or passively held Regarding passively held domain names the WIPO Overview 2.0 provides With comparative reference to the circumstances set out in paragraph 4 b of the UDRP deemed to establish bad faith registration and

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

UDRP panels have found that passive holding does not prevent a panel from finding bad faith in both registration and use The Panel has examined the similarity of the AMADEUS mark with the disputed domain names its worldwide use and publicity the

website the Panel notes that passive holding does not preclude a finding of bad faith see Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 In this particular case the following actions may be considered as use in bad

�被投诉人被动持有 passive holding � � 5 � 事人双方主张 A 投诉人 投诉人的CMA CGM商标早在1997年就已� 在，具有非常� 的知名度� �争议域名�'�投诉人的商标混淆� �相似�

contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith see paragraph 3.2 of WIPO Overview 2.0 which in the present case has been demonstrated by the Respondent s constant attempts to delay the proceedings

that a domain name is held passively does not prejudge a legitimate use of that domain name rather such passive holding is deemed a bad faith indicator The Complainant sent a cease and desist letter to the Respondent which remained unanswered B

in mark GOOGLE amounts to passive holding which here also reflects bad faith use Various panels including this one have held that passive holding coupled with a respondent s knowledge of trademark rights of a complainant in the name being so

site is available The simple passive holding of the Disputed Domain Names without any actual message other than the check back later language on Respondent website does not constitute a legitimate use of the Trademarks Similarly this passive

by the Respondent The passive holding under the appropriate circumstances amounts to use of the domain name in bad faith particularly where the domain name in question contains a well-known trade mark Finally in his response to the cease

domain name by Respondent passive holding may also be considered to constitute bad faith as stated in paragraph 3.2 of the WIPO Overview 2.0 Noting again Respondent failure to submit any response the Panel concludes that the disputed domain

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

decision the Respondent was passively holding the disputed domain name it did not resolve to any website According to paragraph 3.2 of the WIPO Overview 2.0 the apparent lack of so-called active use e.g to resolve to a website of the domain name

use The Panel agrees that the passive holding of a domain name does not necessarily circumvent a finding that the domain name is being used in bad faith within the requirements of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy See Telstra Corporation Limited v

�被投诉人被动持有（ passive holding ）� � 5 � 事人双方主张 A 投诉人 投诉人首先主张争议域名与投诉人商标相同� �投诉书附有上述商标注册证的副本� �争议域名同投诉人的HUGO BOSS商标及其�