domain name but is instead passively holding the disputed domain name for commercial gain after the launch of his Internet business vi The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant B Respondent i The

to an active website such passive holding can be considered as a use in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows supra Jupiters Limited v Aaron Hall WIPO Case No

the panel agreed that the passive holding of domain names could not be construed as a Policy Paragraph 4 c i bona fide offering or Policy Paragraph 4 c iii legitimate noncommercial or fair use of a domain name The Panel does not believe

considered to be engaged in passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name which has long been considered to constitute bad faith under certain circumstances Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Here given what

under the Policy founded upon passive holding has been established for many years by UDRP panels First developed in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 passive holding has since been recognized by many UDRP

with previous UDRP decisions passive holding of a disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith registration and use As to the current use of the disputed domain name the Panel concludes that the circumstances referred to in

and that therefore the actual passive holding of the disputed domain name does not preclude a finding of bad faith either B Respondent The Respondent requests the Administrative Panel to deny the remedies requested by the Complainant First of all

and use Finally Respondent s passive holding of a number of the Domain Names incorporating an identical mark constitutes bad faith use and registration pursuant to Policy paragraph 4 b iv Therefore based upon all of the circumstances Complainant

the question of whether the passive holding of a domain name could constitute bad faith Paragraph 3.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions 2.0 WIPO Overview 2.0 states that panels have found that the apparent lack

consistently found that the passive holding of a domain name can constitute bad faith and use B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions.3 6 Discussion and Findings Pursuant to the Policy Complainant is required to

holds that the Respondent s passive holding of the Domain Name and its behavior satisfies the requirements of the Policy as clarified in the landmark case Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and constitutes

to consider the current passive holding of the disputed domain names as use of the disputed domain names in bad faith and finds that the Complainant has satisfied the dual requirement of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy In the Panel s opinion

any active content Respondent passive holding of the disputed domain name is a further indication that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name See Ziegenfelder Co v VMH Enter Inc WIPO Case No D2000-0039 finding that

to consider the current passive holding of the disputed domain name as use of the disputed domain name in bad faith and finds that the Complainant has satisfied the dual requirement of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy In the Panel s opinion

found that the concept of passive holding may apply even in the event of sporadic use In this case the Panel concludes that the following cumulative circumstances are indicative of passive holding in bad faith the distinctive nature of the

According to the Panel the passive holding or non-use of domain names is in appropriate circumstances evidence of a lack of rights or legitimate interests in the domain names See Red Bull GmbH v Credit du Léman SA Jean-Denis Deletraz WIPO

�被投诉人被动持有 passive holding � � 5 � 事人双方主张 A 投诉人 投诉人早于1924年就已� 始使� �商标IBM� � �其产� �� �投诉人认为� �过其多年宣传�'�使� �，该商标已成为世界知名商标� �

that the Respondent s later passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name does not avoid the ambit of the Policy The Complainant submits lastly that the Disputed Domain Name is so obviously connected to the Complainant that its use by someone with

website and are therefore a passive holding This constitutes a holding in bad faith because the disputed domain names incorporate the Complainant s internationally-known trademark and there is no conceivable use to which the disputed domain names

trademark and subsequent passive holding of such a domain thus preventing the trademark holder from registering such a domain is viewed by the Examiner as bad faith Moreover by choosing a word â ��agencyâ �￾ as the gTLD has already