in UDRP decisions that the passive holding of a domain name that incorporates a trademark without obvious use for an Internet purpose does not necessarily circumvent a finding that the domain name is in use within the requirements of paragraph 4

�被投诉人消极持有 passive holding � �争议域名 christianlouboutinchinese.com 指向� 名为 金缕衣公司 的网站，网站上� � �服装� �首饰� �� �子产� �等� �争议域名 christianlouboutinforchina.com � �

the panel decided that passive holding in certain circumstances may amount to use in bad faith The Panel has identified the following circumstances as material to the issue in the present case i the Complainant s trademark has a strong

usage by Respondent at best passive holding of the domain at worst and as found use in bad faith DECISION Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy the Panel concludes relief shall be GRANTED Accordingly it is Ordered

relies on the so called passive holding case-law to consider that they are being used in bad faith Considering the above the Complainant asks for the transfer of the four disputed domain names B Respondent The Respondents did not reply to the

domain name is currently passively held the Complainant alleges that it poses a legitimate threat to its interests and argues that the reasoning of the decision in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003

name for the purpose of passive holding and to divert consumers seeking the Complainaint s goods to the Respondent s website Prior UDRP decisions hold that blatant use of another s mark in a passively-held domain name or in a domain name used

use 9 Complainant says the passive holding of those of the Domain Names that Respondent has not used Nos 60-66 is sufficient to demonstrate bad faith Clark Equip No FA1513849 Oreck Holdings No FA1143439 Hamid No D2001-0032 10 As regards the

The Panel considers the passive holding of the disputed domain name where Respondent has provided no evidence of good faith or mitigating circumstances or facts to be sufficient in this case for a finding of bad faith use Complainant has

asserts that the concept of passive holding has to be applied even in the event of sporadic use The Complainant points out that the requirement of passive holding can be qualified as given as the web site at the disputed domain name was not

also be given by inaction or passive holding The Complainant affirms that the trademark BRADESCO is so widely used and known by the public that it would be almost impossible for someone to claim having registered said trademark as a domain name

also be found by inaction or passive holding The Complainant affirms that the trademark BRADESCO is so widely used and known by the public that it would be almost impossible for someone to claim having registered said trademark as a domain name

under the Policy that the passive holding of a domain name may relevantly constitute a bad faith use in appropriate circumstances The Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name in combination with having no rights or legitimate

also be given by inaction or passive holding Complainant affirms that the trademark BRADESCO is so widely used and known by the public that it would be almost impossible for someone to claim having registered said trademark as a domain name had it

Complainant as he is merely passively holding the disputed domain name without making any effort to use or to show intent to use it and ii the Complainant is extremely well-known and popular amongst the Indian populace and there is virtually no

webpage Respondent is not passively holding the Infringing Domain Name because Respondent intends to make active use of the Infringing Domain Name at an undisclosed future date Response While there may be a legal definition of passive that I am

passive holding � � 5 � 事人双方主张 A 投诉人 投诉人主张，� � 立即将被投诉人注册并正在使� �的争议域名转移给投诉人� �理� �如下： A.1 争议域名与MARLBORO商标混淆�

mark and Respondent s passive holding of the domain name Respondent registered and used it in bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression Complainant has thus made out the third of the three elements that it must

that the Respondent has passively held the disputed domain name and is engaging in no activity Passive holding has been accepted as a sufficient bad faith indicator in a number of UDRP cases See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear

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