in many UDRP cases that passive holding under the appropriate circumstances falls within the concept of the domain name being used in bad faith Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Action S.A v Robert

refers to Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name as evidencing bad faith in particular because Complainant trademark has a strong reputation and Respondent has not provided any evidence of actual or intended good faith use

forum DECISION QuiBids Holding LLC v Paul Collins / Queensland Soulmates Pty Ltd / Qld Soulmates Pty Ltd t/a C-Products Claim Number FA 1353522 PARTIES Complainant is QuiBids Holding LLC Complainant represented by Jordan Ashley Smith of

that the Respondent s present passive holding of the domain name meets the requirement of paragraph 4 a iii that the domain name is being used in bad faith by the Respondent based on the following circumstances i the Complainant s trademark is

repeatedly as a form of passive holding or use in bad faith Several warning letters sent by the Complainants to the Respondent were never answered thus confirming the Respondent unwillingness to deal fairly with the Zegna Group trademark

websites or so-called passive holding UDRP panels have adhered to the approach outlined in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows supra In Telstra the panel explored the question of which circumstances of inaction or passive

in many UDRP cases that passive holding under the appropriate circumstances falls within the concept of the domain name being used in bad faith Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Action S.A v Robert

in many UDRP cases that passive holding under the appropriate circumstances falls within the concept of the domain name being used in bad faith Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Action S.A v Robert

domain name constitutes passive holding of the domain name and permits findings of bad faith registration and use according to Policy Paragraph 4 a iii The Panel agrees See DCI S.A v Link Commercial Corp D2000-1232 WIPO Dec 7 2000 concluding

Paragraph 4 c iii Respondent passive holding of the domain name for over seven years is also evidence of its lack of legitimate rights or interest in the domain name See Bloomberg L.P v SC Media Servs & Info SRL FA 296583 Nat Arb Forum Sept 2 2004

Complaint has been filed are passive and not in use but relies on the decision in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and subsequent decisions agreeing therewith in supporting its allegation that in the

established that the mere passive holding or parking of a domain name can evidence bad faith If Respondent should subsequently create content for its web site any apparent legitimate interest indicated by that content would be pretextual having

WIPO Case No D2008-1867 Passive holding of a domain name may in certain circumstances constitute evidence of bad faith use In this case the Panel notes that the Complainant s mark is well-known there is no evidence of any actual or

Complainant contends that the passive holding of the disputed domain name equals bad faith use B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions but requested to revert back this dispute to the German Court for a proper

de posesión pasiva o passive holding por virtud del cual se considera como mala fe el uso pasivo del dominio como ocurre en este caso pues el Titular del nombre de dominio en disputa si bien anuncia que el mismo no está a la venta y se

mera detenzione passiva c.d passive holding di un nome a dominio può costituire in presenza di ulteriori circostanze a prova della malafede del registrante un utilizzo in malafade ai sensi della Policy Il Collegio ritiene quindi di poter

Therefore the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes the evidence of its bad faith The Panel finds that this is adequate to conclude that the Respondent has registered and is holding the disputed domain name in bad

Therefore the Respondent s passive holding of two of the disputed domain names and the use of the other two domain names to sell allegedly counterfeit products constitutes the evidence of its bad faith The Panel finds that this is adequate to

This is not a case of passive holding by the Respondent or an instance of an unsophisticated Complainant Complainant notes that it has been in business for more than a century and half and has developed worldwide fame in both real space and

Complainant submits that the passive holding of the disputed domain name in circumstances where the Respondent is well aware of the widespread reputation and goodwill of the Complainant in the MAHINDRA trademark amounts to registration and use in