regard 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 the light of the above the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been

the UDRP have shown that the passive holding of a domain name can constitute a domain name being registered and used in bad faith Further this Examiner can envision numerous hypotheticals where a registrantâ � �s passive holding of a domain name

meant for any legitimate use Passive holding can represent bad faith use of a domain name especially in circumstances where it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the domain name by the Respondent that

was then considering whether passive holding could amount to bad faith use The question that then arises is what circumstances of inaction passive holding other than those identified in paragraphs 4 b i ii and iii can constitute a domain name

contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions Second Edition the WIPO Overview 2.0 paragraph 3.2 As stated in the WIPO Overview 2.0

long period of seven years of passive holding and only the dispute notification led to a parking page being established and this is not bona fide or a genuine offering 5 The Respondent s use is not legitimate or fair use 6 The Respondent made

apply to the Respondent The passive holding of the disputed domain names indicates bad faith registration and use Bad faith is shown also by the cyberflight of the disputed domain names when Ming Li transferred the disputed domain names to the

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

Complainant and the present passive holding supports a finding of registration and use in bad faith for the intention of selling the disputed domain name B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and

s 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

Respondent s registration and passive holding of the Disputed Domain Names show an intent to interfere with the Complainant s business and a desire to sell the Disputed Domain Names to the Complainant or one of its competitors for valuable

that the respondent s passive holding of the domain name satisfied the requirement of paragraph 4 a iii and that the domain name was being used in bad faith by the respondent because 1 the complainant s trademark had a strong reputation and

The question whether such a passive holding of a domain name can constitute bad faith use has been dealt with in the landmark decision of Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The Panel finds that the

been used the registration is passive holding and as such its registration and use is in bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not respond to the Complainant contentions 6 Discussion and Findings 6.1 Language of the Proceeding The language of

view of UDRP panels is that passive holding of a domain name may in appropriate circumstances be consistent with a finding of bad faith However UDRP panels have tended to make such findings in circumstances in which for example a complainant mark

the Domain Name constitutes passive holding with circumstances pointing to the conclusion that this passive holding is a bad faith use of the Domain Name Complainant states that in Telstra as in the present case the respondent s domain name did

to an inactive site and passively holding a domain name can constitute a factor in finding registration and use in bad faith iii The domain name in dispute can only be taken as intending to cause confusion amongst Internet users as to its

other UDRP panels that passive holding of a domain name can amount to a respondent acting in bad faith The concept of passive holding may apply even in the event of mere parking by a third party of a domain name see Telstra Corporation

and the lack of active use passive holding does not prevent a finding of bad faith WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions Second Edition paragraph 3.2 Given the evidence of the Complainant s prior rights in a well-known

and the lack of active use passive holding does not prevent a finding of bad faith WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions Second Edition paragraph 3.2 WIPO Overview 2.0 Given the evidence of the Complainant s prior rights