for the principle that the passive holding of a domain name by a respondent can amount to bad faith for the purposes of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy in certain circumstances The circumstances in that case were i the complainant trade mark had

contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith Conclusively the Panel has taken a view that the disputed domain names have been registered and is being used in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph

�被投诉人被动持有 passive holding � � 5 � 事人双方主张 A 投诉人 投诉人已在美国持续使� �Philip Morris名称� �以� � �其商� �超过� 个世纪，并� 公众已将Philip

thereby constituting passive holding the disputed domain name must be considered as being used in bad faith as established by prior UDRP panels Furthermore the lack of use of the disputed domain name particularly close to those used by the

s website constitutes passive holding in bad faith The Respondent s failure to respond to the Complainant s cease and desist letter is further evidence of bad faith B Respondent The following is a summary of the Respondent s contentions The

on those websites The passive holding of the elitemodellook.com.au domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith This domain name was registered around the same time as the other disputed domain names and incorporates the Complainant

Automobili Lamborghini Holding S.p.A Audi AG Volkswagen AG v Joey Walt globebiz Imports Groupo Gold WIPO Verfahren Nr D2011-1269 Hinzu kommt dass die Beschwerdeführer Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A und Bugatti International S.A die Volkswagen

is well established that the passive holding of a domain name is consistent with a finding of bad faith use if it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the domain name by the Respondent that would not be

wherein it was held that the passive holding of a 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 the respondent behavior The Panel therefore

under the circumstances the passive holding of the Domain Name amounts to bad faith registration and use because it cannot imagine any plausible future active use of the Domain Name by the Respondent that would be legitimate and not infringing on

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 legitimate right or interest in the name iii The disputed domain name was registered and is

decisions 1 Respondent is Passively Holding the Disputed Domain Name Respondent s passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name which does not resolve to any active website indicates his bad faith intent Numerous panels have found that passive

such use could be said to be passive use of the Domain Name passive holding is no bar to a finding of bad faith on the part of the Respondent In accordance with the consensus view of the UDRP panels the factors indicated and the absence of any

since August 7 2013 The passive holding of a domain name amounts to bad faith when it is difficult to imagine any plausible future active use of the domain name by the respondent that would be legitimate and not infringing the complainant

that a respondent has made a passive holding of a disputed domain name the consensus view of other UDRP panels as noted at paragraph 3.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions Second Edition WIPO Overview 2.0 is that

Edmunds.com Inc v Triple E Holdings Limited WIPO Case No D2006-1095 The Domain Name sofitel.holiday is currently inactive Nevertheless this state of inactivity does not mean that the Domain Name is used in good faith Indeed passive holding does

Haru Holding Corp v haruofjapan Claim Number FA1503001607728 PARTIES Complainant is Haru Holding Corp Complainant represented by Janet C Moreira of MAVEN Intellectual Property Florida USA Respondent is haruofjapan Respondent Illinois USA

of finding bad faith through passive holding WIPO Case No D2000-0003 telstra.org Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows Procedural Factors The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no

have already 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 the respondent s behaviour For all of

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 In the present case as