域名的恶意注册和使用是域名仲裁过程中需要参考的三要素之一（域名是否与商标相同或相似；域名持有人是否拥有合法权利和权益；域名是否构成恶意注册和使用。见前一篇文章：关于域名仲裁的小知识），在《域名争议解决政策》中粗略说明了构成恶意注册和使用的4种情况。在世界知识产权组织2017年发布的《WIPO Overview 3.0》中则对域名恶意注册和使用作了进一步的解释。
域名恶意注册和使用的判定（3.1）
以下四个条件满足其中任何一个即可以被认定为恶意：
- 域名持有人注册或获得域名的主要目的是为了向商标持有人或其竞争对手出售、租借或转让，以期获得超过域名获取成本的收益；
circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name
- 域名持有人注册域名的目的是为了阻止商标所有人获得能够反应其商标的域名；
the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct
- 域名持有人注册该域名主要用于破坏竞争对手的业务；
the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor
- 域名持有人刻意利用与商标相似的产品和服务吸引用户访问该域名以获得商业利益。
by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the respondent’s website or location
关于第1点，单纯的以出售为目的注册域名并不构成恶意使用，通常而言。（3.1.1）
Generally speaking, panels have found that the practice as such of registering a domain name for subsequent resale (including for a profit) would not by itself support a claim that the respondent registered the domain name in bad faith with the primary purpose of selling it to a trademark owner (or its competitor).
判定恶意注册和使用的其它因素（3.2）
- 域名的内涵（Nature：性质、本质或属性，我个人感觉此处翻译成“内涵”比较合适）：驰名商标或域名添加额外的词语，如描述性或地理位置相关的词语;
the nature of the domain namea typo of a widely-known mark, or a domain name incorporating the complainant’s mark plus an additional term such as a descriptive or geographic term, or one that corresponds to the complainant’s area of activity or natural zone of expansion
- 选择的域名与投诉人的商业领域或服务领域相关，如对方提供财务类相关服务，你注册了个与其商标相同或相似的".finance"后缀的域名（个人理解）;
the chosen top-level domainparticularly where corresponding to the complainant’s area of business activity or natural zone of expansion
- 域名指向的网站内容含有此类内容或时间安排，“此类内容”应该是指与商标持有人商业领域相关的内容；
the content of any website to which the domain name directs, including any changes in such content and the timing thereof
- 注册的时机和条件，如在投诉人发布新产品后注册或投诉人续费域名失败后抢注；
the timing and circumstances of the registrationparticularly following a product launch, or the complainant’s failure to renew its domain name registration
- 搜索引擎如果能很容易搜到域名与商标相关联系即表示域名持有人知晓该情况。如果投诉人的商标并非固有的独特性（普通的单词或字母组合非固有的独特性）或域名持有人够证明商标知名度有限则可以证明域名持有人不知晓该商标。（3.2.2）
域名不使用是否构成恶意（3.3）
域名不使用（如空白页面或“Coming soon”页面）也可能构成恶意，取决于以下因素：
- 商标的独特性和知名度；
- 域名持有人未回复或提供善意使用或将要善意使用的证据；
- 域名持有人违反域名注册协议，使用虚假信息；
- 其它善意使用的不可信证据。
Can the “passive holding” or non-use of a domain name support a finding of bad faith?
From the inception of the UDRP, panelists have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or “coming soon” page) would not prevent a finding of bad 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 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, (iii) the respondent’s concealing its identity or use of false contact details (noted to be in breach of its registration agreement), and (iv) the implausibility of any good faith use to which the domain name may be put.
域名恶意使用的其它情况（3.4）
如发送电子邮件、网络钓鱼、身份盗窃或恶意软件分发。
非法使用即恶意。
Panels have held that the use of a domain name for purposes other than to host a website may constitute bad faith. Such purposes include sending email, phishing, identity theft, or malware distribution. (In some such cases, the respondent may host a copycat version of the complainant’s website.) Many such cases involve the respondent’s use of the domain name to send deceptive emails, e.g., to obtain sensitive or confidential personal information from prospective job applicants, or to solicit payment of fraudulent invoices by the complainant’s actual or prospective customers.
域名停放的问题（3.5）
域名停放时，第三方自动生成的内容如果跟商标内容相关构成恶意。
Particularly with respect to “automatically” generated pay-per-click links, panels have held that a respondent cannot disclaim responsibility for content appearing on the website associated with its domain name (nor would such links ipso facto vest the respondent with rights or legitimate interests).
Neither the fact that such links are generated by a third party such as a registrar or auction platform (or their affiliate), nor the fact that the respondent itself may not have directly profited, would by itself prevent a finding of bad faith.
While a respondent cannot disclaim responsibility for links appearing on the website associated with its domain name, panels have found positive efforts by the respondent to avoid links which target the complainant’s mark (e.g., through “negative keywords”) to be a mitigating factor in assessing bad faith.
使用隐私或代理服务对判定的影响（3.6）
如果域名持有人使用隐私或代理服务的目的是为了避免收到针对其提起的UDRP诉讼的通知，专家组倾向于认为这支持不诚信的推断；提交回复的被诉人可以反驳这种推断。
There are recognized legitimate uses of privacy and proxy registration services; the circumstances in which such services are used, including whether the respondent is operating a commercial and trademark-abusive website, can however impact a panel’s assessment of bad faith.
In terms of underlying respondent identity, panels treat privacy and proxy services as practical equivalents for purposes of the UDRP, and the fact that such services may be employed to prevent the complainant and panel from knowing the identity of the actual underlying registrant of a domain name does not prevent panel assessment of the UDRP elements.
Where it appears that a respondent employs a privacy or proxy service merely to avoid being notified of a UDRP proceeding filed against it, panels tend to find that this supports an inference of bad faith; a respondent filing a response may refute such inference.
Panels additionally view the provision of false contact information (or an additional privacy or proxy service) underlying a privacy or proxy service as an indication of bad faith.
In some cases, particularly where the respondent does not avail itself of the opportunity to respond to claims based on the timing of the registration of the disputed domain name (such as a materially relevant change in underlying registrant), panels have been prepared to infer that the use of a privacy or proxy service may seek to mask the timing of the respondent’s acquisition of the domain name.
Panels have also viewed a respondent’s use of a privacy or proxy service which is known to block or intentionally delay disclosure of the identity of the actual underlying registrant as an indication of bad faith.
免责声明是否影响恶意使用的判定（3.7）
取决于域名持有人是否有合法的权利和权益。
In cases where the respondent appears to otherwise have a right or legitimate interest in a disputed domain name, a clear and sufficiently prominent disclaimer would lend support to circumstances suggesting its good faith. For example, where a respondent is legitimately providing goods or services related to the complainant’s mark only (see Oki Data and its progeny discussed at 2.8), the presence of a clear and sufficiently prominent disclaimer can support a finding that the respondent has undertaken reasonable steps to avoid unfairly passing itself off as related to the complainant, or to otherwise confuse users.
On the other hand, where the overall circumstances of a case point to the respondent’s bad faith, the mere existence of a disclaimer cannot cure such bad faith. In such cases, panels may consider the respondent’s use of a disclaimer as an admission by the respondent that users may be confused.
域名注册时间与商标注册时间先后的问题（3.8）
通常而言，以域名持有人获取该域名的时间为准（如果是自己注册的就以注册时间为准；如果是购买或抢注的就是购买或抢注的时间为准），先到先得。
但以下几种情况例外（3.8.2）：
- 域名注册于公司宣布合并之前或之后不久（这个不久具体多长时间不知）；
- 域名注册人了解内幕信息，如前雇员；
- 媒体关注度高，如产品发布或有重大活动；
- 注册于投诉人提交商标申请之后。
where a respondent registers a domain name before the complainant’s trademark rights accrue, panels will not normally find bad faith on the part of the respondent.
Merely because a domain name is initially created by a registrant other than the respondent before a complainant’s trademark rights accrue does not however mean that a UDRP respondent cannot be found to have registered the domain name in bad faith. Irrespective of the original creation date, if a respondent acquires a domain name after the complainant’s trademark rights accrue, the panel will look to the circumstances at the date the UDRP respondent itself acquired the domain name.
As an exception to the general proposition described above in 3.8.1, in certain limited circumstances where the facts of the case establish that the respondent’s intent in registering the domain name was to unfairly capitalize on the complainant’s nascent (typically as yet unregistered) trademark rights, panels have been prepared to find that the respondent has acted in bad faith.
Such scenarios include registration of a domain name: (i) shortly before or after announcement of a corporate merger, (ii) further to the respondent’s insider knowledge (e.g., a former employee), (iii) further to significant media attention (e.g., in connection with a product launch or prominent event), or (iv) following the complainant’s filing of a trademark application.