UDRP decisions i.e Koç Holding A.S v KEEP B.T WIPO Case No D2009-0938 to argue that passive holding can still constitute an act of bad faith as well on paragraph 3.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions Second

UDRP decisions i.e Koç Holding A.S v KEEP B.T WIPO Case No D2009-0938 to argue that passive holding can still constitute an act of bad faith as well on paragraph 3.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions Second

through fees Alternative the passive holding of the name constitutes bad faith B Respondent The Respondent filed only a very short informal response the contentions in which can be summarised as follows The assertions are without merit regarding

this domain name and holding it passively with a stated intent to sell rent or transfer it to Complainant. Further Respondent has made no bona fide use by registering and passively holding the disputed domain name in a manner to prevent

information or is otherwise passively holding the disputed domain names the Respondent has registered and has used the disputed domain names in bad faith 5 Moreover the Respondent is confusing consumers and capitalizing on the Complainants ™

case in terms of good faith holding of the disputed domain name Even if there is no use of the disputed domain name finally the Panel reminds the Respondent that the passive holding of domain names also falls under the Policy under specific

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

or fair use Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name is evidence of bad faith use and registration Further Respondent registered the disputed domain name with constructive and/or actual knowledge of Complainant s rights in the

Panel finds that Respondent s passive holding or inactive use of the disputed domain name is not a Policy Paragraph 4 c i bona fide offering of goods or services or a Policy Paragraph 4 c iii legitimate noncommercial or fair use See TMP Int l Inc v

asserts that the Respondent passive holding of the disputed domain name since then constitutes bad faith relying on Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The Complainant maintains there is no evidence of any

Paragraph 4 a iii that the passive holding for an extended period of a domain name that was confusingly similar to the mark of a UDRP complainant constituted evidence of bad faith in its registration and use Thus the Panel finds that Complainant

disputed domain name under a passive holding scheme which evidences a bad faith use of the disputed domain name The Respondent acquired the disputed domain name for the purpose of transferring it for a value that exceeds the out of pocket costs

Panel adds that any current passive holding of the website does not prevent the Panel from finding registration and use in bad faith The Panel finds that Complainant has proven that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad

name is currently inactive passive holding could still constitute an act of bad faith Therefore Complainant alleges that Respondent was not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use without intent for commercial gain but has been using the

name is currently inactive passive holding could still constitute an act of bad faith Therefore Complainant alleges that Respondent was not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use without intent for commercial gain but has been using the

As previously mentioned passive holding can in certain circumstances constitute bad faith use In the present case the Respondent registered a domain name reproducing exactly a third party s well-known trademark hid its identity chose not to

Complainant The Respondent s passive use of the disputed domain name amounts to bad faith under numerous UDRP precedents In view of the Complainant s longstanding reputation in its PETROBRAS mark it is difficult to believe that the Respondent did

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

nigdy nie była używana ang passive holding nie stanowi przeszkody w ustaleniu istnienia złej wiary zgodnie z WIPO Overview 2.0 Podsumowując Pozew spełnia wymagania przewidziane w paragrafie 4 b Polityki 7 Rozstrzygnięcie Wobec

the Panel finds that the passive holding of said disputed domain name does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith See WIPO Overview 2.0 paragraph 3.2 The Respondent could have explained its choice of the disputed domain name and its