the time of its registration Passive use of a domain name registered in bad faith is deemed use in bad faith As per Paragraph 9 c of the URS Rules English is the language of the Determination given the absence of a Response Pursuant to Paragraphs

possible that a r espondent s passive holding amounts to bad faith Telstra supra stating that paragraph 4 b recognizes that inaction e.g passive holding in relation to a domain name registration can in certain circumstances constitute a domain name

domain name and that the mere passive holding of a mark the use of which would inevitably cause confusion constitutes bad faith The Complainant also contends that in a telephone conversation between a representative of the Complainant and the

s website or location The passive holding of a domain name can constitute bad faith use especially when combined with other factors such as the respondent preventing a trademark or service mark holder from reflecting its mark in a corresponding

website it is obviously a holding website and qualifies as passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name The Panel notes the large number of domain names associated with the Respondent some of which incorporate other well-known names In the

registered them and are holding them for the same bad faith purposes The Panel regards the holding of the Domain Names with such intent as a form of passive use in bad faith for the purpose of paragraph 4 a iii of the UDRP in line with many

registration followed by a passive holding of a domain name when there is no way in which it could be used legitimately can amount to use in bad faith Here the disputed domain names have no other meaning except for the reference to the name and

of and intellectual property holding company for Amazon.com Inc Among the Complainant s products are e-readers sold under the KINDLE trademark and electronic tablets phones and other products sold with the designation FIRE and permutations thereof

is perceived as an act of passive holding which prevents the Complainant from registering its rightfully owned trade mark as a domain name In the Complainant's opinion as the Respondent has no legal right to use the Complainant s trade mark

registration followed by a passive holding of a domain name when there is no way in which it could be used legitimately can amount to use in bad faith The disputed domain name has no other meaning except for the reference to the name and

�被投诉人被动持有 passive holding ，争议域名未指向任何有效网站� � 5 � 事人双方主张 A 投诉人 投诉人主张争议域名与投诉人享有权利的BULGARI商标相同或混淆�

been used in bad faith The passive holding of a domain name without any attempt by the respondent to contact or to sell it to the trademark owner does not prevent a finding of bad faith under paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy The panel must

active website However such passive holding does not prevent a finding of use in bad faith WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions paragraph 3.1 Given the past bad faith use of the Disputed Domain Name and the fact that it is

panel finds that Respondent s passive holding of the morganstanleyrecruitment.com domain name indicates bad faith under Policy Paragraph 4 a iii DECISION Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy the Panel concludes that

the lack of active use passive holding of the Disputed Domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions Second Edition WIPO Overview 2.0 paragraph 3.2 In this connection the

�� �被投诉人被动持有 passive holding ，并未指向任何有效的网站� �因此，争议域名�'�与其相关的名字都没有在善意提供商� �或服务相关情况下的使� �� � 鉴于投诉人的商标具有较�

with active websites passive holding of a domain name can constitute use in bad faith for the purposes of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy f With respect to those of the disputed domain names that are being used in connection with monetized

contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith The panel must examine all the circumstances of the case to determine whether the respondent is acting in bad faith Examples of what may be cumulative

consensus view that the mere passive holding of a domain name constitues use in bad faith As a matter of fact no use in good faith can exist when the domain name corresponds to a well-known third party's trademark and when the legitimate owner of

website Such passive holding can amount to bad faith registration and use depending on the facts of a particular case In this case the Complainant maintains that the Respondent s passive holding amounts to bad faith registration