which the panel stated that passive holding of a domain name can constitute use in bad faith The Complainant notes that the Disputed Domain Name is not currently in use and submits that some of the criterions of bad faith discussed in Telstra

such that Respondent passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use B Respondent Respondent admits that the disputed domain name contains Complainant trademark and that he does not have any license

also be given by inaction or passive holding The Complainant affirms that the trademark BRADESCO is so widely used and known by the public that it would be almost impossible for someone to claim having registered said trademark as a domain name

of inactive domain names passive holding if particular circumstances are present The Panel finds that in this particular case the following circumstances are present i the Complainant s trademark is widely known ii the Respondent has provided

could be said to be akin to passive holding under the circumstances that is no bar to a finding of bad faith on its part In accordance with the consensus view of the UDRP panels the factors indicated and the absence of any Response on the part of

administrativos o chamado passive holding também pode caracterizar a má fé Confira-se A postura omissiva e não-colaborativa do Reclamado no sentido de a de não usar o domínio b de não indicar qualquer pretensão de uso e c de nem ao

to espouse the view that passive holding need not preclude a finding of bad faith Having regard to all the circumstances the evidence suggests that the Respondent may have made a typographical error at the time of registration of

Panels have held that the passive holding of a domain name can be considered as use in bad faith see between many others Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and Cleveland Browns Football Company LLC v

conclude that the Respondent passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes sufficient evidence of bad faith use and registration according to prior UDRP decisions B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant contentions 6

using those Domain Names The passive holding of these Domain Names does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith Accordingly the Panel finds that the Respondent has registered and is using the Domain Names in bad faith under paragraph 4 a iii of

active use of a domain name passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith Instead panels may draw inferences about the registrant bad faith e.g based on the circumstances surrounding registration Given the clear infringing use

� c 被投诉人被动持有 passive holding 争议域名，� �止投诉人以域名的形式在�'� 网上使� �其享有合法权益的注册商标AMWAY，构成恶意� � 被投诉人于2014年7月17日注册争议域名 amway.商城

trademark holder so-called passive holding by Respondent does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith On the contrary the specific cumulative circumstances in this case in which the Domain Name is identical to the undisputed well-known

understood as a case of passive holding the Panel finds that in the circumstances of this case this use of the disputed domain name can be considered use in bad faith The evidence further indicates that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of

filed the Complaint and this passive holding amounts to the Respondent s bad faith The Complainant further argues that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark from reflecting the mark

the disputed domain name as a passive holding that merely advertises the services of the Registrar Such use does not constitute a bona fide or legitimate noncommercial use The Complainant has not granted the Respondent any license permission or

that the Respondent s passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name is another factor indicating bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not formally reply to the Complainant s contentions However by emails sent on December 9 2014 and again

It is 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

to that event but instead was passively holding the disputed domain name The Complainant avers that the Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights in Leadpages that the Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain

or fair use or purpose the passive holding of a domain name is not a bona fide or legitimate use vi Complainant s MORGAN STANLEY marks are so well known that the only plausible inference that can be derived from Respondent s registration of the