of this particular case the passive holding of the disputed domain name by Respondent amounts to Respondent acting in bad faith It concludes that it does The particular circumstances of this case which lead to this conclusion are i Complainant s

that this is a case of passive holding in bad faith and therefore use in bad faith The Examiner finds clear and convincing evidence that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith Accordingly URS Procedure 1.2.6.3

of this particular case the passive holding of the disputed domain name by Respondent amounts to Respondent acting in bad faith It concludes that it does The particular circumstances of this case which lead to this conclusion are i the

names by Respondent their passive holding is also an act of bad faith under the circumstances as stated at paragraph 3.2 of WIPO Overview 2.0 especially in light of Respondent s pattern of bad faith conduct Accordingly the Panel concludes that

Finding for Complainant The passive holding of a domain name can constitute bad faith registration and use especially when combined with other factors such as the respondent preventing a trademark or service mark holder from reflecting its mark

the Respondent s continued passive holding of the disputed domain name in the face of the Complainant s letter further drawing attention to its rights in the trademark and its failure to respond to the Complainant s demands further indicates use

a valuable new business The passive holding of this Domain Name with such an intent amounts to bad faith use Considering the circumstances the Panel considers that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith 7 Decision For the foregoing

of the disputed domain name Passive holding can be considered as an indication of bad faith However in case of the disputed domain name it has been less than four 4 months since its registration on June 19 2015 As such the period of passive

and is not being used such passive holding of a domain name can constitute a factor in finding bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 a iii Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position B Respondent Respondent

states that Respondent is passively holding the disputed the disputed domain names katchapp.co and ktch.tv which supports a finding of bad faith registration and use under Policy Paragraph 4 a iii B Respondent Respondent submits inter alia that

argues that Respondentâ � �s passive holding of the domain name in view of Complainantâ � �s famous mark â ��compel a finding that Registrant is using netflix.news in bad faith.â �￾ Previous URS decisions have held that the passive holding of

previous UDRP panels is that passive holding in itself does not preclude 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 see WIPO Overview 2.0 paragraph 3.2

to an inactive webpage such passive holding of the Domain Name may still constitute bad faith use depending upon the attendant circumstances WIPO Overview 2.0 paragraph 3.2 See Lego Juris A/S v Reiner Stotte WIPO Case No D2010-0494 Redcats S.A

contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith Examples of what may be cumulative circumstances found to be indicative of bad faith include that no response to the complaint has been filed and the

�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，� � 立即将被投诉人注册并正在使� �的争议域名转移给投诉人� �理� �如下：

show that the Respondent s passive holding amounts to bad faith Supporting these arguments there are previous decisions under the Policy for the proposition that passive use in certain circumstances can constitute abusive use The following cases

of the registration and passive holding of those Domain Names must have been in bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings A Consolidation of Proceedings The named registrant

behind the Respondent's passive holding of the Domain Name could be multiple and the Panel is unable to determine them with sufficient accuracy Nevertheless it is clear from the Respondent's attitude that the Respondent's passive holding of

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

contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows supra The Panel has examined all the circumstances of the case to determine whether Respondent is