Fashion Brands Holding Corporation v Lapinte Amaury Claim Number FA1509001638386 PARTIES Complainant is Fashion Brands Holding Corporation Complainant represented by Steven Soloway of Law Office of Steven Soloway California USA Respondent

the Complainant is in Even passive holding of a disputed domain name identical to a famous trademark so the Complainant asserts amounts to bad faith registration and use B Respondent The Respondent did not formally reply to the Complainant

resolves qualifies as passive holding and it is a consensus view that passive holding does not by itself prevent a finding of bad faith See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions Second Edition paragraph 3.2 The Panel

well-established doctrine of passive holding under the UDRP that allows for a finding of bad faith even where a domain name is not actively being used In the landmark case Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003

iv of the Policy The current passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name is not a bar to finding bad faith use in the circumstances of this case In light of the above the Panel concludes that the Respondent registered and subsequently used the

Disputed Domain Name for and passive holding of a domain name corresponding to a well known trademark like BAYER amounts to bad faith use The Complainant relies upon a large number of previous WIPO UDRP decisions concerning its BAYER trademark The

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

to the Respondent current passive holding of the disputed domain name the Complainant asserts that the Complainant mark has a strong reputation and that there was no evidence of any actual or contemplated good faith use The Complainant further

has supported findings that passive holding constitutes a use in bad faith thirdly on August 3rd 2015 Complainant sent to Registrant a cease and desist letter explaining that the use of the contested domain name breached SANOFI S prior rights

account factors including the passive holding of the relevant domain name that the trademark TELSTRA an invented word was strong and internationally famous and the deviousness of the respective respondent as to its true identity and contact details

of the Domain Name and passive holding constitutes opportunistic bad faith registration and use of the Domain Name B Respondent No formal Response was received by Respondent 6 Discussion and Findings A Identical or Confusingly Similar It is

disputed domain names The passive holding of the disputed domain name psgjerseys.com constitutes use in bad faith Further information on the Respondents as found on the WhoIs rcords appears to be questionable and the websites to which the

alleges that Affinion Group Holdings Inc through its predecessors was formed in 1973 The Complainant further alleges that Affinion Group Holdings is the parent corporation of both Affinion Publishing LLC and Trilegiant Corporation collectively

and that the continued holding of the Domain Name is in bad faith This is consistent with the holding in Pfizer Inc v Legal Dept Barry McMahon and Pfizer ltd Sys Admin WIPO Case No D2013-2046 In addition it has been held in previous UDRP

also be found by inaction or passive holding of a domain name including a well-known mark and no Response filed by a respondent as in the case of the disputed domain name Given the fame of the BRADESCO trademark and the other facts explained the

the disputed domain name is passively held as alleged by the Complainant or used for the Turkish language website advertising moving services discussed supra the disputed domain name is being used in bad faith As to passive holding It is

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

and may be used for deception Passive holding of a Domain Name which cannot be used legitimately by anyone other than the trade mark holder is registration and use in bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant

�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� 将争议域名 ashleymadison.site 转移给投诉人，理� �如下： 投诉人的� �部设在加拿大，会� 人数超过3700万�

the Complainant business Passive holding of a Domain Name can be an indication of bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant contentions 6 Discussion and Findings A Identical or Confusingly Similar The Domain Name