used and contends that passive holding of a domain name is in violation of the policy and constitutes bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant contentions Pursuant to paragraph 5 e of the Rules if a respondent

others choose the content Passive holding of a domain name is neither evidence of or against bad faith and must be evaluated in light of all of the circumstances relating to the domain name see also StaffEx Corp v Pamecha FA 1029545 Nat Arb

D2001-0026 WIPO Mar 23 2001 holding confusing similarity where the domain name in dispute contains the identical mark of the complainant combined with a generic word or term Kohler Co v Curley FA 890812 Nat Arb Forum Mar 5 2007 holding confusing

use has not been totally passive Respondent has shown not only demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain names for active websites but some albeit minimal actual use For another passive holding alone is insufficient to prove bad

PANEL DECISION Cheung Kong Holdings Limited and Chueng Kong Property Development Limited v Netego DotCom Case No D2009-0540 1 The Parties Complainants are Cheung Kong Holdings Limited and Cheung Kong Property Development Limited of Hong Kong SAR

cites case law that states passive holding of domain names suggests that the Respondent registered the domain name for the purpose of selling them to the Complainants for profit The Complainants state this clearly demonstrates the Respondent

concludes that Respondent s passive holding of the hotrusianbride.com domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See DCI S.A v Link Commercial Corp D2000-1232 WIPO Dec 7 2000 concluding that the

notice because of passive holding The domain name was described as the concatenation of two generic English words and therefore the passive holding principle did not apply In the present case the Respondent has stated that it did not

the disputed domain name passively as it resolves to an inactive website It has been established in many UDRP cases that passive holding under the appropriate circumstances falls within the concept of the domain name being used in bad faith

the Complainant group However passive holding of a disputed domain name can in appropriate circumstances constitute bad faith registration and use see in that regard Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and the

this one have held that passive holding coupled with a respondent knowledge of trademark rights of a complainant in the name being so held as is clearly the case here can amount to bad faith use under paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy see also

is a Fortune 500 bank holding company that provides a wide range of financial products and services both to corporations and to consumers Complainant began using the CIT trademark in 1956 and adopted the business name CIT Group Holdings Inc

in certain circumstances mere passive holding has been held to constitute use of the domain name in bad faith see Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Jupiters Limited v Aaron Hall WIPO Case No D2000-0574 The

also contends that the passive holding of the website alone cannot show bad faith use Respondent claims that he is not receiving any revenue from the links on the site and thus claims not to make bad faith use of the domain name Finally

to contemplate the concept of passive use and that inaction or passive holding can constitute the use of a domain name in bad faith The panel found that each case must be evaluated on its facts to determine whether the passive use constituted use

of a domain name the sole passive holding constituting in itself a use in bad faith In any case the Complainant asserts that the links appearing on the website accessible at www.santandrea.com are connected to different websites promoting or

iii of the Policy Finally the passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name which has never been actively used by the Respondent also constitutes evidence of bad faith See eBay Inc v Sunho Hong WIPO Case No D2000-1633 relating to the domain name

San Patrick S.L v Young Holdings Limited Case No D2009-0577 1 The Parties The Complainant is San Patrick S.L of Barcelona Spain The Respondent is Young Holdings Limited of GuangZhou GuangDong Province People Republic of China 2 The Domain

and well-known The passive holding of the domain names equates with a bad faith use of a domain name especially because the Respondent has taken active steps to conceal its true identity B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the

assert that the Respondent passive holding of the disputed domain name for more than two years further shows that the Respondent is acting in bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant contentions 6 Discussion and