recognizes that inaction e.g passive holding in relation to a domain name registration can in certain circumstances constitute a domain name being used in bad faith Telstra supra The Panel in that case went on to state that in considering whether

name is used in good faith Passive holding of a domain name does not preclude a finding of bad faith B Respondent The Respondent sent two responses by email to the Center in the Chinese language as well as in the English language The portion of

above and concludes that even passive holding of such a well-known trademark as its trademark NATWEST would be in bad faith It summarises that its trademark NATWEST is well-known that the Respondent must have been aware of the rights of the

The prevailing view is that passive holding is not evidence of either good or bad faith but must be interpreted in the context of all of the circumstances of the case Similar reasoning applies with respect to the significance of passive holding

is under construction Such passive holding is evidence of bad faith Language in the Response suggesting that Respondent is willing to sell the disputed domain name to Complainant is further evidence of Respondent bad faith in registering and

conclusion that a r espondent passive holding amounts to bad faith In this case Respondent is not merely passively holding the domain name An analysis of the totality of circumstances indicates that Respondent engaged in activity that consists of

finds that the Respondent passive holding of these Disputed Domain Names that are currently inactive constitutes use in bad faith The condition of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy has been fulfilled since the Disputed Domain Names have been

transfer of the mark Such passive holding following fraudulent activities still constitutes an act of bad faith and any future use of the Domain Name by the Respondent would have to be assumed to constitute passing off and/or trademark

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

disputed domain name remains passive and inactive since registration It should be noted that passive holding of a disputed domain name does not negate the possibility of bad faith registration and use especially where the Complainant s trademark

disputed domain name remains passive and inactive since registration It should be noted that passive holding of a disputed domain name does not negate the possibility of bad faith registration and use especially where the Complainant trade mark is

country in return for a passive royalty income Complainant s business was originally established in 1984 with a single store in Perth Western Australia The Cash Converters business has grown to 146 stores throughout Australia and over 700

Limited held that inaction or passive holding of a domain name can be considered use in bad faith See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Here Complainant contends that the fact that the Domain Name is

domain name Evidence of passive holding of a domain name has been held under some circumstances amount to the Respondent acting in bad faith The Panel in particular is taking into consideration the Complainant argument and evidence that the

to a landing page the passive holding of a domain name which has no other legitimate use and clearly references the Complainant trademark may constitute registration and use in bad faith See also the leading case Telstra Corporation Limited

any panels have held that the passive holding of a domain name can constitute bad faith in light of the overall circumstances of the case Therefore this Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith in

�被投诉人被动持有 passive holding ，也无证据� �示被投诉人在注册争议域名后曾将或准备将争议域名进行非商业� �或合理使� �� � 先前的UDRP案例中，UDRP� 家组已认定恶意使�

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

�被投诉人被动持有 passive holding ，也无证据� �示被投诉人在注册争议域名后曾将或准备将争议域名进行非商业� �或合理使� �� �先前的UDRP案例中，UDRP� 家组已认定恶意使�

forum DECISION MSI Holdings LLC v Richard Hicksted Claim Number FA1410001586282 PARTIES Complainant is MSI Holdings LLC Complainant represented by William S Hilton of Pergament Gilman & Cepeda LLP New Jersey USA Respondent is Richard