inactive a fact constituting passive holding in bad faith That the fame and recognition of the Complainant trademarks and the impossibility of conceiving a good faith use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent are indicative of bad faith

1 The disputed domain name is passively held It is well-established hat passive holding does not prevent a finding of use in bad faith See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows Supra   D2015 0578 self represented red bull.boutique

�被投诉人消极持有 passive holding 的状� �� � 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：

contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as such prevent 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 Examples of what may be cumulative

famous trade mark MISSONI The passive holding of the disputed domain name and the Respondent s pattern of registering domain names which correspond to famous trade marks are also evidence of bad faith registration and use B Respondent The

panels have considered that passive holding of a disputed domain name can satisfy the requirements of paragraph 4 a iii and that in such cases the panel must give close attention to all the circumstances of Respondent s behavior Respondent has

constituting the practice of passive holding as Complainant shows in previous Cleveland Browns Football Company LLC v Andrea Denise Dinoia WIPO Case No D2011-0421 as per Annex 26 of the Complaint and Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear

to the fact that the current passive holding of the disputed domain name does not exclude the Respondent s bad faith the Panel is perfectly in line with the Complainant s assertions Passive holding in appropriate circumstances has been considered

active website The Respondent passive holding of the disputed domain name indicates in the specific circumstances of this case bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name The concept of a domain name being used in bad faith is not

Policy Paragraph 4 b ii The passive holding of the disputed domain name tdbank.email in sum with Respondent s registration of multiple domain names incorporating well-known trademarks establish a pattern of bad faith registration 14 Furthermore

Panel rather notes 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

resolved to an inactive page passive holding since its registration Indeed the Respondent could not have used the Disputed Domain Name without infringing the Complainant's intellectual property rights Therefore the Complainant contends that the

use under the concept of passive holding See Recordati S.P.A v Domain Name Clearing Company WIPO Case No D2000-0194 passive holding of domain name without use in commerce can support finding of bad faith use Telstra Corporation Limited v

contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as such prevent 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 Examples of what may be cumulative

No D2009-1529 noting that passive holding of a disputed domain name does not constitute a legitimate use of such a domain name that would give rise to a right or legitimate interest in the domain name The Domain Name was registered and is being

even where the site is now passively held See Countrywide Financial Corporation v Web Domain Names FA0605000708909 Nat Arb Forum July 7 2006 respondent s passive holding of the coutrywide.com domain name and as a means to receive click-through

found that the concept of passive holding may apply even in the event of sporadic use Here a major obstacle to a finding of passive holding as an indicator of bad faith is that as the panel stated in the Travelindex Case the facts of which bear

the question of whether the passive holding of a domain name could constitute bad faith Paragraph 3.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions 2.0 WIPO Overview 2.0 states that panels have found that the apparent lack

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

has argued that this is passive holding however this Panel finds that it goes beyond what is normally understood as passive holding It would appear that the Respondent is in fact putting the disputed domain names to an active use to advertise