contends that Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name can be considered bad faith Respondent s disputed domain name resolves to a webpage parked by crazydomains.com Past panels have held that passive use of a disputed domain

in bad faith It is true that passive holding of a domain name can be in bad faith but it does not follow that all passive holding of a domain name is in bad faith Merely retaining a domain name which could be used improperly but without any

with active websites Passive inactivity with respect to a domain name is considered to be in bad faith Passive holding of a domain is even more likely to be considered in bad faith when Respondent s registration of the domain also prevents

jurisprudence stated that passive holding under the appropriate circumstances falls within the concept of the domain name being used in bad faith particularly where the domain name in question contains a well-known trade mark In accordance with

the disputed domain name as a passive holding constitutes bad faith use Previous UDRP panels have found that the passive use of a domain name without any active attempt to sell or contact the trade mark owner does not prevent a finding of bad faith

It is also relevant that the passive holding of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith See paragraph 3.2 of the WIPO Overview 2.0 The third element of paragraph 4 a of the Policy has therefore been satisfied 7 Decision For the

appropriate circumstances passive holding can amount to bad faith use In the instant case the majority of the circumstances referred to above indicating bad faith passive holding are present Complainant owns a well-known trademark Respondent

of the domain name either The passive holding of a domain does not generate any rights or legitimate interest to a domain name Thus the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name bloomberg.lawyer under URS 1.2.6.2 URS

Panel finds the Respondent passive holding of the disputed domain name to constitute use in bad faith Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Moreover the Complainant has related damage it allegedly sustained

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

Complainant asserts that the passive holding of a domain does not generate any rights or legitimate interest to a domain name The Respondent has contended that the parking page is permissible since the disputed domain name consists of a generic

UDRP cases Tetra Laval Holdings & Finance S.A v TetraPak Global PH-AU Gerald Smith WIPO Case No D2012-0847 Tetra Laval Holdings & Finance S.A v Vahid Moghaddami AzarNet.Co WIPO Case No D2010-0268 Tetra Laval Holdings & Finance S.A v Mohammad

s mark In any event passive holding of a Domain Name confusingly similar to a famous trade mark is bad faith B Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding FINDINGS The Complainant is the owner of the FLUOR trade

have similarly held that passive holding of a disputed domain name is indicative of registration and use of the domain name in bad faith Indeed as discussed above the Panel finds that the only credible explanation for the Respondent use of the

is of the opinion that the passive holding of the disputed domain names by the Respondent amounts to the Respondent acting in bad faith Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 After examining all circumstances

domain name Evidence of passive holding of a domain name has been held under some circumstances to constitute use in bad faith Failure to meet paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy while holding a domain name passively would be regarded as evidence

and remain inactive Such passive holding does not preclude a finding of bad faith The reproducing of famous trade marks in a domain name in order to attract Internet users to an inactive website cannot be regarded as fair use or use in good

Overview 2.0 paragraph 3.2 on passive holding decisions with similar facts and reasoning The Panel finds that more probably than not the Respondent registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith targeting the Complainant s ULINE mark The Panel

Boston Private Financial Holdings Inc v Eric Kuniholm / Beacon Capital Management Advisors Claim Number FA1503001611880 PARTIES Complainant is Boston Private Financial Holdings Inc Complainant represented by Robert M O'Connell of Fish &

are in a state of passive holding Considering this Complainant refers to other WIPO UDRP cases according to which passive holding is also considered a bad faith use as decided in Farouk Systems Inc v QYM QYM WIPO Case No D2009-1572 B