to an inactive webpage Passive holding of a disputed domain name incorporating a third party well-known mark does not normally amount to a bona fide use It has been established since the beginning of the UDRP that inaction / passive holding

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

Case No D2005-0790 The simple passive holding of the Disputed Domain Names without any actual message other than the check back later language on the website to which they resolve does not constitute a legitimate use of Complainant Trademarks

well-established doctrine of passive holding Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Accordingly the Panel finds that Complainant has proven the third element of the Policy 7 Decision For the foregoing reasons in

to the Respondent Lastly the passive holding of two of the Domain Names under the present facts cannot avoid a finding of bad faith Accordingly the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the specified requirements of paragraph 4 a iii of

Nat Arb Forum July 31 2000 holding that the respondent s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true see also Talk City Inc v Robertson D2000-0009 WIPO Feb 29 2000 In the

the merely descriptive terms HOLDING and group which apart from being indistinctive openly refer to the Complainant that is a holding company even having the word holding in its commercial title and in the business world group is generally used

which demonstrates that it is passively held by the Respondent The Panel concurs with UDRP decisions which consider that the passive holding of a domain name that incorporates a widely known trademark without obvious use for an Internet purpose

The Panel notes that the passive holding of a domain name reflecting a trademark in which a respondent is aware of the complainant prior rights has frequently been found to support an inference of bad faith See e.g Telstra Corporation Limited

also submits that the passive holding of the Domain Name by Respondent is an evidence of bad faith especially as the undeveloped website to which the Domain Name resolves merely states that it belongs to K.K.T Turbo Systems a competitor of

interests Respondent is passively holding the domain name because the website used with it is a temporary parking page That passive use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services There has been no apparent effort to make

Respondent is maintaining a passive website associated with this disputed domain name It is well settled that passive holding of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith Under the circumstances of this case particularly in light of

�被投诉人被动持有 passive holding � �� �于争议域名注册人� 系地� 的� �误，书面� �知无法以快� 形式� �达� � 5 � 事人双方主张 A 投诉人 在美国� 利与商标�

interests Respondent is passively holding the domain name because the website used with it is a temporary parking place That passive use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services There has been no apparent effort to make noncommercial

the Domain Name and cites the passive holding doctrine of Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 contending that as in Telstra there is no conceivable bona fide use that Respondent could make of this Domain Name

the Complainant claims that passive holding under appropriate circumstances falls within the concept of the domain name being used in bad faith particularly where the domain name in question contains a well-known trademark As a matter of fact the

assertion that the Respondent passive holding of the Domain Name proves bad faith use The Respondent argues that he operated a web site at the Domain Name from 2008 until 2014 The web site was under construction for about a year as he developed his

supra an instance of passive holding has been dealt with significantly in earlier decisions under the UDRP notably in Telstra Corporation Ltd v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and Telstra Corporation Limited v Barry Cheng Kwok

�被投诉人被动持有 passive holding � �根据注册机构的确认，注册人的地� 仅仅包含城市� �区域�'�邮� �编码� �� �于地� 不完整，书面� �知无法以快� 形式� �达� � 5 � 事人双方主张 A 投诉人

in the 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