trademark and subsequent passive holding of such a domain thus preventing the trademark holder from registering such a domain may be viewed as bad faith The Respondent has not submitted any evidences showing an intent of a bona fide use of the

of Complainant However such passive holding of the website does not prevent the Panel from finding registration and use in bad faith and this indicates that Respondent possibly registered the Disputed domain name with the intention to attract for

UDRP panels have found the passive holding of a domain name as in the case of mixmag.tv does not disqualify a finding of bad faith use Panels have also held that even where a registrant has no direct control over the use made by a registrar of

of this particular case the passive holding of the disputed domain name by the Respondent amounts to the Respondent acting in bad faith It concludes that it does The particular circumstances of this case which lead to this conclusion are i the

is well established that the passive holding of a domain name without any active attempt to sell or to contact the trademark holder does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith See WIPO Overview 2.0 paragraph 3.2 In conclusion the Panel finds

the domain name is inactive passive holding may be considered as a clear evidence of bad faith   NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED Rights The Complainant has to the satisfaction of the Panel shown the Domain Name is identical

�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1993年就已� 始使� �NVIDIA商标� �投诉人认为� �过其多年使� �，该商标已广为人知� �1999年投诉人发� �了� 图处理器

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 Thus the Panel finds for the Complainant on the third part of the test 7 Decision For the

prior panels have held that passive holding of a domain name which incorporates a well-known mark is insufficient to overcome a finding of bad faith See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 As one panel

registrations and subsequent passive holding of such a domain thus preventing the trademark holder from registering such a domain may be viewed as bad faith Respondent has not submitted any defense showing an intent of bona fide use of the domain

UDRP panels that even the passive holding of a disputed domain name without any active attempt to sell it or to contact the trademark holder does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith but that the panel must examine all the circumstances

it was ascertained that passive holding of a domain name may be sufficient to constitute bad faith use taking into consideration the overall context of Respondent behavior The Domain Name although deactivated has not been cancelled The

only positive action but also passive holding see the landmark case Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 In this Panel s view even though the disputed domain names are not currently pointing to an active

to an inactive webpage Passive holding of a disputed domain name incorporating a third party well-known mark does not normally amount to a bona fide use It was established even since the beginning of the UDRP that inaction / passive holding

currently inactive but such passive holding could still constitute an act of bad faith and any realistic use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent would constitute passing off and/or trademark infringement In the current case surrounding

the numerous UDRP decisions holding as such that the Complainant s MARLBORO trademark is one of the most famous trademarks in the world The Respondent has failed to establish rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name The passive

the UDRP policy found that passive holding of a domain name may qualify for bad faith under certain circumstances see WIPO D2004-0988 CBS Inc v Nabil Z.aghloul see also WIPO DAU2013-0005 Cobb International Limited v Cobb Australia & New Zealand

the Panel finds that the passive holding of such a confusingly similar domain name is outside the bounds of Policy Paragraph 4 a ii since it is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 c i or a legitimate

resolves to a passive website providing sponsored listings which are hyperlinks to other websites in which Respondent presumably receives click-through advertising revenue Use of Complainant s licensed trademark in a domain name

parked and no rights exist in passive holding of such a domain name He further states that there is no connection or relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent Given the non-generic nature of the Complainant name and fame associated