The Panel finds that such passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith use and registration under Policy Paragraph 4 a iii see also Intel Corp v Pentium Group D2009-0273 WIPO May 6 2009 It has long been generally held in

of the disputed domain name passive holding can be considered as a bad faith use by citing Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marchmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 finding that in appropriate circumstances bad faith use need not involve

finds that the Respondent s passive holding of this Domain Name coupled with the Respondent s pattern of conduct and false contact details discussed above also supports a finding of bad faith registration and use of this Domain Name as well

in UDRP decisions that the passive holding of a domain name which incorporates a well-known trademark without obvious use for legitimate purpose can constitute evidence bad faith Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO D2000-0003

in a situation involving a passive holding of the disputed domain name Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 In Telstra the panel considered the specific circumstances of the case including the following i

name does not constitute passive holding as the Complainant contends but is rather an active use which is in present circumstances capable of forming a basis for finding bad faith Finally the Panel notes that throughout the period of

passive holding ）也可能构成恶意使� �域名 Telstra Corporation Limited 诉 Nuclear Marshmallows，WIPO案件编号D2000-0003 � �在本案中，� 家组综合� �虑了以下具� 情况包括：第�

Inc Amazon Europe Holding Technologies SCS v Li tianyi / Registration Private Domains By Proxy LLC DomainsByProxy.com Case No D2013-2160 1 The Parties The Complainant is Amazon.com Inc Amazon Technologies Inc Amazon Europe Holding

faith because i the state of passive holding does not prevent the finding of bad faith ii the Respondent intentionally conceals the identity of the domain name holder acting in a conspiracy against the very purpose of the WhoIs system and the UDRP

it was affirmed that the passive holding of a domain name may constitute further inference of bad faith registration and use In view of all the above based on the evidence on record the Panel can conceive of no other reason for the

argues that the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name equals bad faith use in the present case as the trademark BRADESCO is so widely used and known by the public that it would be almost impossible for someone to claim having

has engaged in the act of passive holding which is widely held by various UDRP panels to be an act of bad faith under paragraph 4 b of the Policy e.g Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Jupiters Limited v

the Respondent is engaged in passive holding of the Domain Name The concept of passive holding refers to a situation where a respondent has registered a Domain Name and is not using it for any purpose the respondent being inactive In the present

Inc and Amazon Europe Holding Technologies SCS v U S / Amazon.com Inc Case No D2013-2161 1 The Parties Complainant is Amazon.com Inc Amazon Technologies Inc and Amazon Europe Holding Technologies SCS of Seattle Washington United States of

recognises that inaction e.g passive holding in relation to a domain name registration can in certain circumstances constitute a domain name being used in bad faith Passive holding is explicitly alleged by the Complainant and has also been closely

an active website constitutes passive holding and demonstrates bad faith use of a registered domain name under the Policy 7 Further the Respondent has been using the disputed domain names to generate revenue both from the sale of products are

Complainants are owned by the holding company Diler Holding which the Complainant says was founded in 1949 The Complaint also outlines the companies which operate within the structure of Diler Holding In addition to the first and second

is currently inactive such passive holding could still constitute an act of bad faith considering its prior deceptive use As a matter of fact the Panel finds that NATWEST is a famous trademark It is obvious that the Respondent was aware of the

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

been parked for over 20 years Passive holding is use of a domain name in bad faith Further the page is parked with a banner of Elvis Presley related advertisements on the top and the bottom This is purposely designed to generate income and benefit