circumstances under which the passive holding of a domain will be considered to be a bad faith registration While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case factors that have been considered relevant in applying the

circumstances under which the passive holding of a domain will be considered to be a bad faith registration While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case factors that have been considered relevant in applying the

established that the mere passive holding of a domain name may in appropriate circumstances be evidence not only of bad faith registration but also of bad faith use See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No

relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant s mark ii the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use

even in cases of so-called passive holding as found in the landmark UDRP decision Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 In the circumstances of this case the Panel finds that such passive holding amounts to

asserts that this amounts to passive holding in bad faith It says that the disputed domain names legobahis101.com legobahis102.com legobahis103.com legobahis104.com legobahis105.com legobahis106.com legobahis107.com legobahis108.com

found that inactive use or passive holding of the disputed domain name by a respondent permits the inference that the respondent lacks rights� and legitimate interests in the domain names � Complainant adds that such passive holding cannot be

faith under the doctrine of passive holding While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include i the degree of distinctiveness or

because the domain name was passively held � Complainant demonstrates that the bridgewaterconsultingcorp.us domain name is not in active use and simply resolves to a passive webpage The Panel finds that this is not a bona fide offering of goods

concludes that Respondent's passive holding of the domain name does not establish rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy � 4 a ii � However referring to screen captures annexed to the Complainant as evidence Complainant furthermore

use Thus the Respondent is holding the disputed domain names passively It has long been generally held in UDRP decisions that the passive holding of a domain name that incorporates a well-known trademark without obvious use for an Internet

finds that the Respondent s passive holding of the Domain Name supports the finding of bad faith As numerous UDRP panels have held passive holding under the totality of circumstances of the case can constitute a bad faith use under the Policy See

contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith see Sanofi Genzyme Corporation v Domain Privacy WIPO Case No D2016-1193 Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd v Whois Agent Whois Privacy Protection Service Inc /

business Respondent s passive holding amounts to bad faith Complainant s mark has a reputation and goodwill is widely known and highly distinctive and there is no evidence of any actual contemplated good faith use by Respondent Respondent

�被投诉人被动持有 passive holding 。 5 � 事人双方主张 A 投诉人 投诉人主张，� � 立即将被投诉人注册并正在使� �的争议域名转移给投诉人。理� �如下：

faith under the doctrine of passive holding See section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 Accordingly the Panel finds that Respondent has registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith and Complainant succeeds under the third element of

WIPO Overview 3.0 considers passive holding and explains that While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include i the degree of

doctrine of bad faith through passive holding In this respect it indicates in particular that given Complainant s goodwill and renown worldwide and the nature of the disputed domain names there simply cannot be any ‘actual or contemplated good

faith under the doctrine of passive holding see WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 While panels will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include e.g

any legitimate purpose Such passive holding of the disputed domain name indicates that the disputed domain name is used in bad faith as the disputed domain name is not actively used so that there is no real and substantial offer of goods and/or