any of its affiliates and by passively holding the disputed domain name the Respondent did not demonstrate use of or demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services nor did the

It seems obvious that the passive holding by the Respondent must be considered as bad faith Consequently the Complainant states that the Respondent should be considered to have registered and to be using the Domain Names in bad faith For all of

PANEL DECISION Kibar Holding Anonim Şirketi a.k.a Kibar Group and Assan Panel Sanayi Ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi a.k.a Assan Panel v Chen Xiaojie Whois Privacy Protection Service / POSTE RESTANTE Novak Jan Case No D2013-2229 1 The Parties

that the Respondent has been holding the domain names danskespilmobil.com and danskespilresultater.com passively for more than six months and the domain names are therefore used in bad faith Furthermore the Complainant alleges that the Respondent

draws attention to PRL USA Holdings Inc and Ralph Lauren Media LLC v Morrison and Associates WIPO Case No D2001-0255 in which the Panel stated that inaction or passive holding by a respondent of a domain name could amount to bad faith The

In a number of previous cases passive holding of a domain name was construed to fall within the meaning of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy evidencing bad faith use in light of the circumstances See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows

asserts that Respondent is holding the disputed domain name passively and with the sole purpose of selling the disputed domain name Complainant is contending that previous UDRP panels held that the passive holding of a domain name that

is currently inactive such passive holding can still constitute an act of bad faith and any realistic use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent would constitute passing off and/or trademark infringement B Respondent The Respondent did

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

other UDRP panels that passive holding of a domain name can amount to a respondent acting in bad faith The concept of passive holding may apply even in the event of mere parking by a third party of a domain name see Telstra Corporation

of this case such passive holding evidences Respondent s bad faith use of the domain name Specifically in allegations supported by a third party and Complainant s employee1 the Complaint alleges that Respondent used an email address

Switch and the Respondent s passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name B Respondent The Respondent makes the following submissions Background Information The Respondent outlines the following chronology January 2009 the Complainant approaches

used It resolves to a holding page which states that the site is under suspension Passive holding does not prevent a finding of bad faith see Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 affirmed in subsequent

at this case as one of passive holding in bad faith While Respondent has not made active use of the Domain Name in connection with a website such passive holding does not in itself prevent a finding of bad faith WIPO Overview 2.0 paragraph

generic descriptive terms are passively held since they are currently not redirected to any active website or are redirected to the Registrar s site which amount also to passive holding as such conduct typically implies complete inaction on the

are currently parked Such passive holding does not in itself constitute a bad faith registration However factors such as having a well-known trademark no response to a cease and desist letter or the Complaint may well suffice to establish a bad

protection legislation Passive holding of a disputed domain name does not preclude the finding of bad faith The Respondent did not provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good faith use of the disputed domain name The Respondent s

further submits that the passive holding of several of the disputed domain names constitutes bad faith use of the disputed domain names The Complainant requests that the Panel transfer the disputed domain names to the Complainant B Respondent

s case is that such passive holding demonstrates use in bad faith while the Respondent argues the contrary The Panel considers that the Respondent is correct in its submission that the existence of passive holding does not necessarily

Names in this Panel s view a passive holding without use of a domain name that comprises a complainant s registered trademark suffixed by no more than the applicable ccTLD evinces no rights or legitimate interests on the part of the registrant