that the Respondent current passive holding of the disputed domain name poses a substantive threat to the legitimate interest of the Complainant trademark right The Panel therefore finds that this is adequate to conclude that the Respondent has

DETERMINATION Duck Bites Holdings LLC v Christopher Gatley Claim Number FA1404001555616 DOMAIN NAME ripoffreport.link PARTIES Complainant � Duck Bites Holdings LLC of Phoenix Arizona United States of America Complainant Representative �

disputed domain names are passively held As established in a number of prior cases the concept of bad faith use in paragraph 4 b of the Policy includes not only positive action but also passive holding see for example Telstra Corporation

name or its business iii 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 and iv the disputed domain name has no other meaning except for the reference to the trademark

The Panel further agrees that passive holding of a domain name or a use compatible to passive holding such as the one in the present case with knowledge that the Domain Name takes advantage of the goodwill of the Complainant trademark rights is

the Domain Name in bad faith Passive holding of the Domain Name can amount to use in bad faith The Domain Name has no other meaning except in reference to the name and trademark of the Complainant No legitimate use can be contemplated when the

disputed domain name is only passively held does not preclude a finding of use in bad faith As set out in paragraph 3.2 of the WIPO Overview 2.0 states in part in relation to passive holding The panel must examine all the circumstances of the case

No D2008-1867 The Respondent passive holding of the disputed domain names also indicates bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain names The concept of a domain name being used in bad faith is not limited to positive action inaction is

Even if the Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name the Complainant asserts that it is inconceivable that the Respondent could make a legitimate use of the disputed domain name given the Complainant s longtime and exclusive use

They are in essence being passively held by the Respondent Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows supra established that in certain circumstances the passive holding of a domain name could amount to use of the domain name in bad

passive holding ，但� �这并不妨碍� 家组认定被投诉人使� �争议域名具有恶意� � 鉴于以上理� �，� 家组认定被投诉人注册及使� �争议域名具有恶意� �因此，�

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 Second Edition WIPO Overview 2.0 states that panels have found that the

of disputed domain names v Passive holding of disputed domain name shanghaidreamworks.com Bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name shanghaidreamworks.com may be found because Respondent has passively held this disputed domain

Even if currently inactive passive holding of the Domain Name could still constitute an act of bad faith in the light of the past fraudulent use B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings

which this Panel follows that passive holding of a domain name with knowledge that the domain name infringes on another party s trademark rights is evidence of bad faith registration and use The Panel also takes into account as evidence of bad

is not used It is passive holding Décision Pour les raison indiquées ci-dessus la Plainte est Acceptée et le s nom s de domaine litigieux est sont VINCI-CONSTRUCTION.ORG Transféré s à/au la société Vinci VINCI-CONSTRUCTIONS.COM

It submits that the passive holding by the Respondent of the disputed domain names amounts to their use in bad faith The circumstances identified in paragraph 4 b of the Policy are not limited and other circumstances can also be evidence

constitutes a conduct of passive holding of a domain name which is evidence of bad faith registration and use In fact the passive holding constitutes evidence of the use and the registration in bad faith because the Complainant s trademarks

forum DECISION MSI Holdings LLC v Nova Giragossian Claim Number FA1403001547275 PARTIES Complainant is MSI Holdings LLC Complainant represented by Jonathan M Doloff of Pergament Gilman & Cepeda LLP New Jersey USA Respondent is Nova

2004 The Panel finds that the passive holding of a domain name that is identical to Complainant s mark is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy Paragraph4 c i and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the