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

and iii the Respondent s passive holding B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings Paragraph 15 a of the Rules instructs the Panel to decide the Complaint on the grounds of the

active use of the domain name passive holding does not prevent a finding of bad faith See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions Second Edition WIPO Overview 2.0 paragraph 3.2 Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows

�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，� � 将争议域名转移给投诉人，理� �如下： A.1 争议域名与投诉人的PHILIP MORRIS商标完全相同或混淆� �相似

panels reiterated that also passive holding can amount to bad faith use The Complainant also states that the trademark BRADESCO is so widely used and known by the public that it would be almost impossible for anyone to claim having registered

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

that the Respondent s current passive holding of the disputed domain name poses a substantive threat to the legitimate interest of the Complainant s service mark right See paragraph 3.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP

Name is registered and used passively in the sense of passive holding in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Such passive holding is a sui generis category of bad faith registration and use in addition to

a webpage which is blank The passive holding of a domain name does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith 6.9 Consequently the Panel finds that the Complaint together with the Amended Complaint satisfies the requirements of paragraph 4 a iii

Pay-per-click parking pages passive holding and inactive use do not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of a domain name and instead demonstrate Respondent s bad faith Respondent has been

by its inaction that is passive holding of the disputed domain name to the exclusion of the Complainant B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 7 Discussion and Findings A Panel shall decide a complaint on

opinion that the currently passive holding of the disputed domain names does not prevent the assessment of bad faith use B Respondent The Respondent requests the denial of the Complaint It particularly argues that it has rights and legitimate

They are in essence being passively held by the Respondent Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 established that in certain circumstances the passive holding of a domain name could amount to use of the

had no right to do so and now passively holds it despite agreeing to cancel the disputed domain name See e.g Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 finding the respondent s passive holding of the domain name

in bad faith by way of its passive holding of the disputed domain name It constitutes a phishing attempt by identity fraud against the Complainant It is likely to mislead the public as to the relationship between the Complainant and the

domain name in an inactive holding with no content Complainant has provided Exhibit 1 to demonstrate Respondent s non-use of the domain name The Panel agrees that the passive holding of a domain name does not necessarily circumvent a finding

�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，� � 将争议域名转移给投诉人，理� �如下： A.1 争议域名与投诉人的MARLBORO商标完全相同或混淆� �相似 a

cases the Panel notes that passive holding of a domain name does not prevent the finding of bad faith use See amongst others the leading case Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmellows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The Panel also finds that

panels have held that the passive holding of a domain name under the circumstances of this case does not prevent a finding of bad faith use In addition the Complainant claims in its Complaint that the Respondent is a competitor which was not

trademark and subsequent passive holding of such a domain thus preventing the trademark holder from registering such a domain is viewed by the Examiner as bad faith The Respondent has not submitted any evidences confirming circumstances listed