as though the Respondent is holding the disputed domain name passively It has long been generally held in UDRP decisions that the passive holding of a domain name that incorporates a well-known trademark without obvious use for a legitimate

have consistently held that passive holding of a domain name can under certain circumstances be considered bad faith use of the domain name See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and Polaroid Corporation v

to an active website such passive holding can be considered as a use in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Jupiters Limited v Aaron Hall

Panel view it constitutes a passive holding in bad faith in accordance with the principles set out in paragraph 3.2 of WIPO Overview 2.0 which states the following consensus view on this issue panels have found that the apparent lack of so-called

that the Respondent makes a passive holding of the disputed domain name According to the Complainant the disputed domain name redirects to an error page displaying the message url not found and the fact that the disputed domain name is passively

have consistently held that passive holding of a domain name constitutes evidence of no rights and legitimate interests as well as bad faith registration and use under the Policy Respondent has been soliciting bids for the Domain Name Complainant

evidence from Respondent passive holding of a domain name does not constitute legitimate non-commercial or fair use 2 The Panel is satisfied that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the Domain Name C Registered or Used in

is well established that the passive holding of a domain name does not as such prevent a finding of the requisite bad faith under the Policy WIPO Overview 2.0 paragraph 3.2 By failing to file a Response the Respondent did not take the opportunity

for legitimate use or passive holding but if the chosen use is to generate PPC revenue then the registrant must ensure this is not carried out in a way that infringes the trademark rights of others Finally and importantly this obligation is

contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith paragraph 3.2 WIPO Overview 2.0 The WIPO Overview 2.0 further states The panel must examine all the circumstances of the case to determine whether the

under the Policy The use of a holding page at the website to which the disputed domain names resolves the Complainant says leads to the conclusion that the Respondent is holding the disputed domain name with the intention of making use of it in the

�被投诉人被动持有 passive holding � � 5 � 事人双方主张 A 投诉人 在美国� 利与商标� 的主注册簿中，投诉人为以上MARLBORO商标的注册� 有人� �投诉人已花费大量时间�

i it is well-settled that passive holding or the holding hostage of a domain name registration may amount to bad faith registration and use as required by paragraph 4 b of the auDRP ii in this instance the Respondent not only refused to

domain name also constitutes passive holding in bad faith B Respondent The following is a summary of the Respondent contentions The Complainant does not have a registered trade mark in the Czech Republic or in any other European Union EU country

active use of the domain name passive holding does not 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 Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows

Nat Arb Forum Apr 12 2007 holding that non-use of a confusingly similar domain name for over seven months constitutes bad faith registration and use In view of the above the Panel finds that Respondent registered and used by passively holding

resolve to an active website passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith use WIPO Overview 2.0 paragraph 3.2 Rather the Panel must look at the totality of the circumstances Complainant VERIZON mark is well known Respondent does

that the Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name and is engaging in no activity Passive holding has been accepted as a sufficient bad faith indicator in a number of UDRP cases See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear

true websites and is being passively held Passive holding of the disputed domain name coupled with the fame of Complainant mark evidences bad faith It has long been generally held in UDRP decisions that the passive holding of a domain name that

Respondent conduct amounts to passive holding not unlike the finding of the panel in the BHP case The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant cease and desist letter The Respondent has provided false address information There can be no