foi s agissant d un cas de passive holding Le Requérant appuie son raisonnement sur une affaire Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows Litige OMPI No D2000-0003 Le Défendeur est un habitué de cette pratique puisqu il a déjà fait

in UDRP decisions that the passive holding of a domain name that incorporates a well known trademark without obvious use for legitimate Internet-related purpose does not necessarily circumvent a finding that the domain name is in use within the

for a portion of its holding costs however Respondent did not respond Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith conduct by acquiring the domain names using them for its commercial gain and more recently passively holding the domain

the Panel finds Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain names constitutes registration and use in bad faith in this case under Policy Paragraph 4 a iii The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy Paragraph 4 a iii DECISION Having

met with the same result The passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name amounts to bad faith The Respondent Qiu Shengjie owns 481 other domains and the email addresses @9333.com and @yima.net which are identified as those of the Respondent are

Panel finds that Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain names supports findings in this case that Respondent registered and passively held these disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy Paragraph 4 a iii The Panel finds that

that a respondent s passive holding of a domain name containing the trademark of another is evidence that such respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name under Policy Paragraph 4 a ii See George Weston Bakeries

nor any registered rights and passively keeps domain on hold for the purpose of selling renting or otherwise transferring the domain name to an interested person Respondent s bad faith is also evidenced by Respondent s pattern of conduct with

See Samsonite Corp v Colony Holding NAF Claim No FA 94313 finding that evidence of bad faith includes actual or constructive knowledge of a commonly known mark at the time of registration Bad Faith Use As proof of bad faith use Complainant points

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

faith The inaction such as passive holding with respect to a domain name registration can constitute bad faith Given the highly distinctive and fanciful nature of the REVLON trademark it is virtually inconceivable that Respondent chose to

the Panel finds Respondent s passive holding of the juicy888.com and cheapjuciyshop.com domain names constitutes bad faith under Policy Paragraph 4 a iii The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy Paragraph 4 a iii DECISION Having

Panel finds that Respondent s passive holding of the statefarmdiscountcheck.com domain name qualifies as bad faith under Policy Paragraph 4 a iii in this case The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy Paragraph 4 a iii DECISION Having

comes within the principle of passive holding laid down in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows supra In that decision a number of circumstances were identified that would go to support a finding of passive holding and hence of bad

Prior panels have found that passive holding can qualify as bad faith in certain situations These findings typically occur 1 when the respondent failed to make active use of a domain name and the complainant s rights in a mark predate the

only pointed to Respondent's passive holding of the domain name for eight years and one prior UDRP complaint resulting in transfer of two domains from Respondent in 2001 The Respondent has not appeared to contest the allegations of bad faith nor

was registered Respondent s passive holding of a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant s famous trademark BENZ evidences bad faith See Disney Enterprises Inc v Troy C Montalvo FA403140 NAF February 28 2005 finding bad faith in

by Complainant Respondent passive holding of the website for over three years evidences a lack of legitimate rights Respondent must have known when it selected the domain name at issue that the public would incorrectly associate it with

inactive website constituting passive use of the disputed domain name According to the Complainant the Respondent uses the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to

is the Respondent s continued holding of the domain name in issue beyond the temporal limit of his distributorship for Denmark Since the Respondent s Danish distributorship for the products has ceased indeed it came to an end in late 1999/early