contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith The panel must examine all the circumstances of the case to determine whether the respondent is acting in bad faith and further indicates that examples of

the disputed domain names The passive holding of the disputed domain name holidayinnresorthotels.com does not establish legitimate rights or interests under the circumstances of this proceeding Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows

that Respondent is currently holding the disputed domain name passively UDRP panels have consistently held that passive holding of domain names can be considered bad faith registration and use of the domain name in particular see Telstra

It is true that the passive holding of the domain name and the fact that the contact details have not been updated could be considered a sign of bad faith in the use of the domain name However the mark on which the Complainant relies in

at this time Respondent s passive holding may constitute use in bad faith for the purposes of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy if in the totality of the circumstances it is clear that Respondent s act of passive holding is in bad faith see e.g

circumstances of inaction passive holding other than those identified in paragraphs 4 b i ii and iii can constitute a domain name being used in bad faith This question cannot be answered in the abstract the question can only be answered in

pursuant to which also a passive holding of a domain name may amount to evidence of bad faith use in particular in connection with the elements which have been set out above For the foregoing reasons the Panel finds that the Complainant has

decisions have found that passive holding of a domain name has amounted to the respondent acting in bad faith Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Although the disputed domain name does not resolve to a

argues that the Respondent s passive holding may constitute use in bad faith for the purposes of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy if in the totality of the circumstances it is clear that the Respondent s act of passive holding is in bad faith see

4 a iii Respondent is holding out the benihanasushi.com domain name for sale Respondent is intentionally preventing Complainant from registering its mark in the benihanasushi.com domain name Respondent is passively holding the domain name

Fourth and as far as the passive holding of the disputed domain name is concerned this Panel shares the opinion expressed by the learned panel in Areva v N/A WIPO Case No D2008-0537 concerning the domain name arevapower.com Having regard to

is prepared to infer that the passive holding of the firstrate6.com Domain Name is use in bad faith It reaches that conclusion because the Domain Name was registered with knowledge of the Complainant was part of a pattern of the Respondent

next argues that Respondent s passive holding of the mckoolsmith.xxx domain name illustrates that Respondent has acted in bad faith The Panel agrees that the domain name is being passively held and used for no active purpose The Panel finds that

de Mantenimiento Pasivo Passive Holding Doctrine según la cual la inactividad puede equivaler a una acción positiva de mala fe En efecto el Titular no ha alegado ningún motivo o presentado ninguna explicación por el registro de los

be inactive the Respondent is passive holding the disputed domain name thus evincing bad faith Second the disputed domain name falsely suggests that a relationship exists between the parties or that the Complainant has endorsed the website of the

configuraria a posse passiva passive holding reprimida por painéis administrativos anteriores Entende assim a Reclamante que a Reclamada não possuiria direitos ou legítimos interesses sobre os nomes de domínio em disputa que devem a ela ser

primarily for the purpose of passive holding and resale Evidence of a pattern of questionable domain name registrations may be taken into account in drawing appropriate inferences In the present case the overall circumstances enable the Panel to

in many UDRP cases that passive holding falls within the concept of the domain name being used in bad faith Finally the Complaint contends that the lack of use of the disputed domain name is likely to cause significant prejudice to its

bad faith use by Respondent Passive holding of a domain name can satisfy the requirements of paragraph 4 a iii In such cases the Panel must give close attention to all circumstances of Respondent s behavior including that no possible good faith

�� �被被动持有（ passive holding ），但� �根据Telstra Corporation Limited 诉 Nuclear Marshmallows，WIPO 案件编号 D2000-0003� 案� 建立的原则，在本案中� 样能认定被投诉人恶意注册�'�使� �争议域名�