of the Domain Name whether passive or active There is no suggestion of such rights or interests here Accordingly the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name C Registered and Used in Bad

the Respondent is currently passively holding the Disputed Domain Name Further the Respondent had the opportunity to demonstrate his rights or legitimate interests but did not do so in his brief email Response As such the prima facie case

Some panels have applied the passive holding concept to mere parking by a third-party Passive holding of a domain name does not shield a respondent from a finding of bad faith See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions Second

is at least in a position of passive holding which is not legitimate in the circumstances VEDA GmbH v Mr Nicholas Silverstone supra Passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith particularly in cases where there are additional

name is not used actively passive holding There is no evidence that a web site or other on-line presence is in the process of being established which will use the domain name In addition the lack of answer from the Respondent while the

a well-known trademark with passive holding can amount to use in bad faith when there is no way in which it could be used legitimately In a later unsollicited statement the Complainant reported that the Respondent got in touch with the

some panels have applied the passive holding concept to mere parking by a third-party It is well established that the mere passive holding of a domain name may in appropriate circumstances be evidence not only of bad faith registration but also of

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 Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Jupiters Limited v Aaron Hall

an active web site i.e is 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 the landmark case Telstra Corporation

becomes one principally of passive holding Passive holding does not in itself prevent a finding of bad faith see WIPO Overview 2.0 paragraph 3.2 The Panel must consider all circumstances of the case to determine whether they amount to Respondent

forum DECISION Ra Sushi Holding Corporation v Privacy Group / Domain Privacy Group Claim Number FA1402001545797 PARTIES Complainant is Ra Sushi Holding Corporation Complainant represented by Janet C Moreira of MAVEN Intellectual Property

In such circumstances the passive holding of the disputed domain name can amount to bad faith registration and use See Inter-IKEA v Polanski WIPO Case No D2000-1614 Inter-IKEA Systems B.V v Hoon Huh WIPO Case No D2000-0438 Telstra Corporation

established that the mere passive holding of a domain name may in appropriate circumstances be evidence not only of bad faith registration but also of bad faith use See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallow WIPO Case No D2000-0003

expenses Further the current passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name does not prevent the Panel s finding of bad faith use under the circumstances of this case The Respondent has failed to submit any evidence or arguments to rebut the above

passive holding � �但� �根据先前的UDRP案例，被投诉人被动持有域名的行为在� 定情形下仍旧可以构成恶意注册�'�使� �争议域名 （见Telstra Corporation Limited 诉 Nuclear

all circumstances the passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith use Accordingly the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith 7 Decision For the foregoing reasons in

bad faith see Charles Jourdan Holding AG v AAIM WIPO Case No D2000-0403 Centurion Bank of Punjab Limited v West Coast Consulting LLC WIPO Case No D2005-1319 The Panel furthermore finds that the Respondent s current use of the disputed domain name

Panel is of the view that the passive holding of a domain name does not necessarily circumvent a finding that the disputed domain names are being used in bad faith within the requirements of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy See Telstra Corporation

case the Respondents are passively holding the disputed domain names The passive holding of a domain name can constitute bad faith use especially when combined with other factors such as a respondent s preventing a trademark or service mark

Finding for Complainant 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