that this case is a pure passive holding case as the disputed domain name was connected neither to an active website nor to a sponsored links webpage A leading decision regarding passive holding was rendered in the Telstra case Telstra

market.com passive holding commerce 10 09 RDCOMMERCE NET COM ELECTRONIQUE-MARKET No 99805150 RDC FR 3036950 3374566 WWW RUE COMMERCE 8299381 754897 882818 RUEDUCOMMERCE rueducommerce com fr www //www rue commerce RUEDUCOMMERE R C

contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith paragraph 3.2 The WIPO Overview 2.0 further stated The panel must examine all the circumstances of the case to determine whether the respondent is acting

even in cases of so-called passive holding as found in the landmark decision Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 In the circumstances of this case the Panel finds that such passive holding amounts to bad

active use of the domain name passive holding does not prevent a finding of bad faith See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions Second Edition WIPO Overview 2.0 paragraph 3.2 Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows

the registration amounts to passive holding that constitutes bad faith use B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings 6.1 Language of the Proceeding The language of the Registration

the Respondent passive holding constitutes use in bad faith as FIDELITY is a well-known trademark At the time the disputed domain name was registered the Complainant FIDELITY trademarks were internationally well-known in respect of

the Respondent passive holding constitutes use in bad faith as FIDELITY is a well-known trademark At the time the disputed domain name was registered the Complainant FIDELITY trademarks were internationally well-known in respect of

the Respondent passive holding constitutes use in bad faith as FIDELITY is a well-known trademark At the time the disputed domain name was registered the Complainant FIDELITY trademarks were internationally well-known in respect of

to an active website 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

and related trademarks The passive holding of a domain name amounts to bad faith when it is difficult to imagine any plausible future active use of the domain name by the Respondent that would be legitimate and not infringing the Complainant s

�被投诉人被动持有 passive holding � � 争议域名与投诉人享有权利的QUALCOMM商标混淆� �相似� � 被投诉人对争议域名不享有任何权利或合法利益� �被投诉人对QUALCOMM不享有注册商标权�

Complainant points out the passive holding of a disputed domain name may in certain circumstances constitute bad faith use under the Policy this is not a necessary determination here The Respondent has in some measure used the well-known name

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 name has no other meaning except for the reference to the name and

generic nor descriptive Passive holding or non-use of a domain name is evidence of a lack of legitimate rights in the domain name Therefore the Examiner finds that the Complaint meets URS requirement of 1.2.6.2 URS 1.2.6.3 The domain name s

in bad faith Further it is holding it primarily for the purpose of selling renting or otherwise transferring it to Complainant to prevent Complainant from using it to disrupt Complainant s business and to attract for commercial gain Internet

further contends that the passive holding of the disputed domain name by the Respondent in the circumstances involves bad faith use B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant contentions 6 Discussion And Findings In the Panel

registration use and current passive holding of the disputed domain name were made in bad faith Considering the renown of the MEISSEN trademark it appears impossible to conceive of any circumstances in which the Respondent could legitimately use

This is a classic case of passive holding See Comerica Inc v Horoshiy Inc WIPO Case No D2004-0615 Indeed the very act of having acquired the Disputed Domain Name raises the probability of the Respondent using it in a manner that is contrary to

note that not every kind of passive holding may be found as use in bad faith Otherwise the necessity to prove that a domain name was actually used would be illusory The Vodafone Panel held that passive holding constitutes use of a domain name in