of UDRP panelists is that passive holding of a disputed domain name may in certain circumstances be consistent with a finding of bad faith The panel must examine all the circumstances of the case to determine whether the respondent is acting in

de domínio em disputa ou passive holding O Reclamante aduz que a marca BRADESCO é largamente utilizada e conhecida pelo público e por isso seria quase impossível que alguém argumente que registrou tal marca como nome de domínio sem ser em

or sanofi.paris that passive holding of a disputed domain name can satisfy the requirements and that using this domain name Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users onto his website by creating a likelihood of

Name the Panel notes that passive holding does not prevent a finding of bad faith Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows supra Furthermore the Panel notes that paragraph 4 b i of the UDRP provides that the following circumstances

the principle that the passive holding of a domain name can constitute bad faith for the purposes of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy The Respondent has said that he has used the disputed domain name to set up an email account This claim of

the Respondent s current passive holding of two of those domain names does not constitute a bona fide or fair use Where the disputed domain names do not have any content there is essentially no use of those domain names In Vivo S.A Portelcom

domain names are inactive passive holding since their registration 4 Given the notoriety of the Complainant s trademarks it seems impossible for the Respondent to use the disputed domain names in good faith Prior UDRP decisions stated that

pressuring the Complainant A passive holding of the disputed domain name does not preclude a finding of bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions However on March 2 2015 the Center received an email

the Respondent is currently passively holding the disputed domain name which currently resolves to a blank and inactive page although the Respondent claims the website is being developed This omission seems to have concerned other panels

use purpose and instead is passively held such passive holding not constituting legitimate use The Complainants add that there is no evidence that the disputed domain name is the legal name of or is commonly used to identify the Respondent The

of WIPO UDRP panels is that passive holding of a disputed domain name may in appropriate circumstances be consistent with a finding of bad faith However panels have tended to make such findings in circumstances in which for example a complainant

to counter the claim of passive holding and the Panel finds that in such circumstances Complainant s allegation may be taken as true The Panel finds Respondent s inactive use or passive holding of the disputed domain name is demonstrative of

from the Respondent and the passive holding of the disputed domain name the Panel has no hesitation in concluding in all the circumstances the requisite element of bad faith has been made out The Panel considers it is inconceivable the Respondent

Respondent is engaged in the passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name that is Respondent is not using the Disputed Domain Name in connection with an active website as of the date of this Complaint However as made clear through the domain name

fact that Respondent may be passively holding the Domain Name can still be characterized as bad faith use See Intel Corporation v The Pentium Group WIPO Case No D2009-0273 Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003

decision the Respondent is passively holding the Disputed Domain Name The passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name reflecting a widely known trademark such as MARLBORO amounts in the circumstances of the case to the Respondent acting in bad

Name which is deemed as passive holding of a domain name Such passive holding constitutes bad faith use under the Policy see Worldwide Pants Inc v VisionLink Commc ns Grp WIPO Case No D2008-1796 Taking into account the foregoing the Panel

a cease and desist letter is passively holding the disputed domain name v The Complainant thus submits that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith vi The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name

were laid out regarding passive holding of a domain name and applied many times subsequently all of which are satisfied on the facts before this Panel In particular there is no reasonable explanation as to why the Respondent would need to use

is well-established that the passive holding of a domain name can in appropriate circumstances constitute a bad faith use for the purpose of the Policy Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The Complainant also