�被投诉人被动持有 passive holding � � 5 � 事人双方主张 A 投诉人 投诉人� �� 家领先知名的全球� �的� 育零� �商，也� �Sports Direct集团公司之� � �Sports Direct集团公司包括Sports Direct International

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 of WIPO Panel

is being used in good faith A passive holding of the disputed domain name does not preclude a finding of bad faith The reproducing of a famous trade mark in a domain name in order to attract Internet users to an inactive website cannot be regarded

contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith » The Panel has to examine the circumstances of the case to decide whether there is bad faith given the circumstances surrounding registration In this

submitted The concept of passive holding as a sui generis basis for finding bad faith within the meaning of the third limb of paragraph 4 a of the Policy was first propounded in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No

LGMB Holding LLC v yang liu Claim Number FA1507001627997 PARTIES Complainant is LGMB Holding LLC Complainant represented by Sidney D Bluming of Meister Seelig & Fein LLP USA Respondent is Yang Liu Respondent represented by Qiang Gao China

as well as the current passive holding of the disputed domain name are solely for the purpose of achieving commercial gain and then constitute bad faith registration and use Finally the Complainant requests that the Panel issue a decision

registration and non-use i.e passive holding of the Domain Names constitutes bad faith because 1 the Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant s HARLEY-DAVIDSON mark 2 there is no conceivable use of the Domain Names by Respondent that

Litige OMPI No D2014-0269 Holding Le Duff HLD c Lahcen Ait Imijja Litige OMPI No D2015-0858 Précisément l'utilisation des nouvelles extensions construction et maison fait référence à des activités relatives à l'immobilier Or le

PANEL DECISION Exness Holdings CY Limited v zhou shaozhe Case No D2015-0923 1 The Parties The Complainant is Exness Holdings CY Limited of Limassol Cyprus represented by Crowell & Moring LLP Belgium The Respondent is zhou shaozhe of Liuzhou

mark in the Domain Name that passive holding of a domain name permits an inference of registration and use in bad faith which in combination with evidence of hiding its identity behind a privacy service or proxy domain registrar use of the

penchées sur cette notion de passive holding lorsque le Défendeur a un site web inactif et se sont demandées si une telle situation génère ou justifie une conclusion d'enregistrement ou d'usage du nom de domaine litigieux de mauvaise foi

The Panel agrees that the passive holding of a domain name does not necessarily circumvent a finding that the domain name is being used in bad faith within the requirements of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy See Telstra Corporation Limited v

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

contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith WIPO Overview 2.0 paragraph 3.2 the Panel finds that Complainant has insufficiently demonstrated that the Respondent has acted in bad faith when he

Complainants submit that the passive holding of domain names does not demonstrate a bona fide offering of goods and services Accordingly the Complainants submit that the Respondents do not have any rights or legitimate interests in any of the

held by many UDRP panels that passive holding of a domain name in itself is typically not capable of creating any rights or legitimate interests therein see e.g Pepperdine University v BDC Partners Inc WIPO Case No D2006-1003 Archipelago Holdings

contact the trade mark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith see Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The Panel must examine all the circumstances of the case to determine

Telstra case that the passive holding of a domain name registered in bad faith may constitute bad faith use within the meaning of the Policy This was the conclusion in the analogous Sitewizard decision cited above and the Panel comes to the

domain name which has been passively held Given the notoriety of the Trademark Respondent must have known of Complainant and of its rights in the Trademark when Respondent registered the domain name Respondent s passive use of the domain name