been removed The Respondent s passive holding of the Domain Name amounts to bad faith In addition the practice of typosquatting itself is evidence of bad faith registration of the Domain Name In view of all the above the Complainant requests the

Panel notes that the current passive holding of the Domain Names does not prevent a finding of bad faith see also among others Compagnie Gervais Danone Société Anonyme des Eaux Minérales d Evian SAEME Société des Eaux de Volvic Nutricia

está caracterizado o chamado passive domain name holding e a Reclamada buscou alterar o titular do nome de domínio em disputa após ter ciência da apresentação da Reclamação B Reclamada A Reclamada não apresentou contestação durante o

the Domain Name appears to be passively held The Panel agrees with the panel in Recordati S.P.A v Domain Name Clearing Company WIPO Case No D2000-0194 which stated that passive holding of domain name without use in commerce can support finding of

to consider the current passive holding of the disputed domain name as use of the disputed domain name in bad faith and finds that the Complainant has satisfied the dual requirement of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy 7 Decision For 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 reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings 6.1 Language of the Proceeding The language of

to an inactive website The passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith See paragraph 3.2 of theWIPO Overview 2.0 For all the above reasons the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the

with pay-per-click links and passive holding constitutes opportunistic bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain names on the part of Respondent Accordingly the Panel finds that the requirements of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy have

contact the trademark 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

the Panel finds that their passive holding constitutes bad faith registration and use See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The Panel concludes that Policy paragraph 4 a iii has been satisfied for each of

under the UDRP that the passive holding of a domain name can amount to bad faith registration inter alia since it is impossible to imagine any plausible legitimate use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent Finally the Complainant

a classic example of passive holding and as held in UDRP decisions raises the probability of the Respondent using it in a manner that is contrary to the Complainant s legal rights See Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A v Igor Venediktow Labintech

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

by many UDRP panels that a passive holding of a disputed domain name in itself is not capable of creating any rights of respondent in the disputed domain name Pepperdine University v BDC Partners Inc WIPO Case No D2006-1003 Archipelago Holdings

among panelists that the mere passive holding of a disputed domain name may be evidence not only of bad faith registration but also indicative of bad faith use According to Respondent the disputed domain names are used in a passive way and for the

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

in general terms that mere passive holding of the disputed domain name could possibly exclude use in bad faith to the extent it would be possible to use such domain name in the future for other services than the services the respective trademark

some benefit in bad faith The holding of such a domain name constitutes a form of passive use in bad faith Decision For all the following reasons the Complaint is Accepted and the disputed domain name s are to be ADOPTEUNMECGRATUIT.COM Transferred

of Complainant may now be passively holding the disputed domain name Such passive holding also supports findings of bad faith and the Panel so finds Respondent makes no contentions relative to Policy Paragraph 4 a iii The Panel finds that

such as these here passive holding is enough see Telstra Corp v Nuclear Marshmallows D2000-0003 WIPO Feb 18 2000 or in line with the argument that the redirection of Internet users to meaningless sites still under construction is bad