reverts to inactive web pages Passive holding of a domain name may constitute use in bad faith Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Additionally prior to Complainant sending the cease and desist letter the

contact the trademark holder passive holding does not per se prevent a finding of bad faith see inter alia Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 telstra.org Intel Corporation v The Pentium Group WIPO Case No

Respondent registration and passive holding of a domain name including a well-known third party trademark constitutes bad faith registration and use See e.g Compagnie de Saint-Gobain v Giovanni Laporta Yoyo.Email WIPO Case No D2014-2156 citing

Giovanni Laporta supra and 02 Holdings Limited v Yoyo.email/Giovanni Laporta WIPO Case No D2014-1399 Forthly the disputed domain name is presently passively used It is established in prior UDRP decisions that the mere passive holding of a disputed

an active web site i.e is passively held As established in a number of prior cases the concept of bad faith use in paragraph 4 b of the Policy includes not only positive action but also passive holding see the landmark case Telstra Corporation

Fried Chicken International Holdings Inc v Kimbeomsung WIPO Case No DRO2002-0004 Complainant alleges that Respondent s use constitutes passive holding which under the circumstances constitutes bad faith use Complainant further maintains that the

domain names 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

at any time In any event passive holding of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith use The Panel accordingly finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad faith 7 Decision For the foregoing reasons in

evidence from Respondent its passive holding of the Domain Name does not constitute a legitimate noncommercial use of the Domain Name.2 The Response does not show that Respondent has any rights to or legitimate interests in the Domain Name whereas

legitimate interest from the passive holding of the disputed domain name and has given no explanation of his motivations for registering it The Complainant says that the Respondent has acted in bad faith Given the fame of the Complainant s mark it

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 the WIPO Overview 2.0 For all the above reasons the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the

alleges constitutes passive holding which has been found to constitute bad faith use in a number of cases including Companhia Brasileira de Bebidas CBB v Pedro Cuesta Unkhoff and IA LTDA WIPO Case No D2005-0634 and Telstra Corp Ltd v

are not in active use their holding in the context of the bad faith use of the disputed domain name graffperfume.com constitutes passive holding and bad faith use and registration in the sense in which that expression is used in Telstra

a parking page is a form of passive holding that constitutes bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant contentions 6 Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4 a of the Policy provides that to obtain the transfer of the

argues that the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name in the present case constitutes bad faith use for the purposes of the Policy as the Complainant s FIMO Marks are long-established and widely known especially in the

Finding for Complainant The passive holding of a domain name can constitute bad faith registration and use especially when combined with other factors such as the respondent preventing a trademark or service mark holder from reflecting its mark

case is a classic example of passive holding which was outlined in many UDRP cases Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Comerica Inc v Horoshiy Inc WIPO Case No D2004-0615 The Panel believes that the very act

is currently inactive such passive holding could still constitute an act of bad faith and any realistic use of the Domain Name by the Respondent would constitute passing off and/or trademark infringement It has been confirmed by numerous

name is currently being passively held Respondent has engaged in bad faith registration and use of the dinersclub.la domain name Respondent s use of the domain name disrupts Complainant s business by diverting Internet customers seeking

appropriate circumstances passive holding evidences bad faith use In the instant case the majority of the facts referred to above are present Complainant owns a well-known trademark there is no response to the complaint and there is no