in bad faith since also the passive holding or non-use of a domain name identical to a trademark can support a finding of bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings According to

interests in the Domain Name Passive holding of a confusingly similar domain name containing a third party mark with prior rights is registration and use in bad faith when considering factors such as the distinctive nature and reputation of the

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

submits that the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain names constitutes use in bad faith especially since the Respondent has taken steps to mask its identity The Complainant seeks a decision that the disputed domain names be

falls within the doctrine of passive holding Indeed all the relevant factors for applying the passive holding doctrine are met here i the Complainant s mark counts among the most well-known trademarks in the world ii the Respondent has failed to

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

active website but rather a passive website where it is offered for sale for USD 1.288 00 Previous UDRP panels have found that the non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding While

a blank page Respondent's passive holding of the at-issue domain name shows neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy � 4 c i nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy � 4 c iii See Thermo Electron Corp v Xu

office showing that Realogy Holdings Corporation was organized in Delaware that same year.� The Complaint states that Complainant operates under the business name Realogy Holdings Corporation which is the ultimate parent company of Complainant.�

iv of the Policy The current passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith Therefore the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith The Complainant has

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

of the Telstra concept of passive holding of a domain name see WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Telstra Corporation v Nuclear Marshmallows Applying the Telstra criteria the Panel agrees in light of the evidence notes above that the mark is distinctive

FA 572937 Forum Nov 18 2005 holding that the addition of both the word advisors and the gTLD com did not sufficiently alter the disputed domain name to negate a finding of confusing similarity under Policy � 4 a i see also Bloomberg Finance L.P v

faith under the doctrine of passive holding when circumstances exist such as the distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant s mark the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good

faith under the doctrine of passive holding when circumstances exist such as the distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant s mark the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good

faith under the doctrine of passive holding See WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 Rather the Panel finds that the change in use further suggests the lack of good-faith explanation as for the Respondent s initial use of the disputed domain name

disputed domain names beyond passively holding them The Respondent is not known nor has ever been known by the distinctive CANVA mark nor by the terms hellocanva or hoccanva As emphasized above the Respondent has no connection or affiliation with

pursuant to the doctrine of passive holding the inactive status of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith See section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 For the reasons stated above the Panel finds that the disputed domain

faith under the doctrine of passive holding See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and Section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 Therefore the Panel finds that the Complainant has also proven that the Respondent

circumstances under which the passive holding of a domain name 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

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

use under the doctrine of passive holding See WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 For the reasons given above the Panel finds that the third and final element has been sufficiently established 7 Decision For the foregoing reasons in accordance with

foi La présente situation de passive holding correspond très exactement aux observations figurant à la Synthèse de l OMPI version 3.0 section 3.3 à savoir notoriété de la marque défaut du Défendeur se dispensant donc de répondre masquage

faith under the doctrine of passive holding See section 3.3 of WIPO Overview 3.0 Therefore on the balance of probabilities taking into consideration all cumulative circumstances of this case the Panel considers that the Disputed Domain Name was

No D2015-0617 The current passive holding of the disputed domain name does not absolve the Respondent of bad faith registration and use and in fact under the circumstances of this case is further evidence of bad faith registration and use See

There is no active use While passive holding is fact sensitive here there are no relevant facts on the face of it and the Respondent has not come forward to explain her reasons for registration and holding In such a case we are entitled to draw

Panels have held that the passive holding of a domain name can be considered as use in bad faith between many others Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and Cleveland Browns Football Company LLC v Andrea

that Respondent’s passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use FINDING OF ABUSE or MATERIAL FALSEHOOD The Examiner may find that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that

as its website address The passive holding of the disputed domain name redirecting Internet traffic to an inactive web page in these circumstances constitutes further and continuing bad faith use � As this Panel has found that the disputed

for commercial gain.� He is holding the Domain Names passively preventing Complainant from reflecting its mark in a corresponding domain name and demands that Complainant purchase the Domain Names from him for an exorbitant amount of money

faith under the doctrine of passive holding See Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel v GARR Garderie Supra and Section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 Therefore the Panel finds that the Complainant has also proven that the Respondent

Complainant asserts that the passive holding doctrine applies in the present proceeding as the Complainant s trademark has a strong reputation there is no evidence of any actual or contemplated good faith use by the Respondent of the disputed

certain circumstances the passive holding of a domain name cannot prevent a finding of bad faith Factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the

� The Panel agrees that the passive holding of a domain name does not necessarily circumvent a finding that the domain name is being used in bad faith within the requirements of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy.� See Telstra Corporation Limited v

contends that both passive holding of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to the mark of another and offering such a domain name for sale have been cited frequently by UDRP panels as evidence that a respondent lacks

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

in UDRP decisions that the passive holding of a domain name that incorporates a registered trademark without a legitimate purpose may indicate that the disputed domain name is being used in bad faith Respondent s failure to use the disputed

s present non-use or passive holding of the disputed domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy For all the foregoing reasons the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being

parked page which constitutes passive holding which has no other legitimate use and constitutes registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith The Panel agrees that the passive holding of a domain name does not necessarily circumvent

with the domain name and that passive holding of a domain name permits an inference of registration and use in bad faith �see also Mondich v Brown D2000-0004 WIPO Feb 16 2000 holding that the respondent's failure to develop its website in a two

FORUM DECISION � Wynn Resorts Holdings LLC v Claim Number FA2112001976346 � PARTIES Complainant is Wynn Resorts Holdings LLC Complainant represented by Erin Lewis of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck Nevada USA.� Respondent is Respondent Hong Kong �

the Panel finds so-called passive holding in bad faith and so finds registration in bad faith in line with the principles first enunciated in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows D2000-0003 WIPO Feb 18 2000 � The Panel finds

Overview 3.0 concerning the passive holding of a domain name the Panel s conclusion of bad faith also extends to the use of the Disputed Domain Name The Panel finds that the Respondent s conduct is a deliberate attempt to derive financial benefit

bad faith in the form of passive holding and the misdirection of Internet users for commercial gain In its supplemental filing the Complainant argues that the Respondent may have thought the domain was his personal property and acted

of the Disputed Domain Name passive holding does not prevent a finding of bad faith By using the Disputed Domain Name passively and having no content on its web page the Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith See

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

case under the doctrine of passive holding See WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 Second as of the writing of the Decision when the Disputed Domain Names resolved to several inactive landing pages that stated that the landing pages were a dangerous

under the Policy as does the passive holding of the other three Domain Names The Complainant also argues for a finding of bad faith in the offering of two of the Domain Names for sale at auction with high minimum prices The Complainant contends

domain names are being passively held as shown in screen captures of identical parking pages to which they each resolve annexed to the Complaint The Complainant submits that countless decisions of panels established under the Policy have

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

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

faith under the doctrine of passive holding In this case the Panel considers that the following cumulative circumstances are indicative of passive holding in bad faith i the distinctiveness of the Complainant s mark ii the failure of the

faith under the doctrine of passive holding Section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 states that relevant factors to finding bad faith in cases of passive holding include i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant s mark ii the

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

s present non-use or passive holding of the disputed domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy see WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 For all the foregoing reasons the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name

bad faith Finally inactive or passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name by the Respondent may amount to bad faith use See Advance Magazine Publishers Inc and Les Publications Condé Nast S.A v ChinaVogue.com WIPO Case No D2005-0615 Société pour

law The Panel agrees that the passive holding of a domain name does not necessarily circumvent a finding that the domain name is being used in bad faith within the requirements of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy See Telstra Corporation Limited v

Complainant s trademarks the passive holding and the typosquatting As WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.1.4 states T he mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated

rights in the mark See Lokai Holdings LLC v Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp FA 1763598 Forum Jan 22 2018 While Complainant does not specifically argue that it has common law trademark rights in FIND YOUR BALANCE the Panel finds Complainant's

or other online presence Such passive holding does not constitute a legitimate or fair use of the disputed domain name The Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name The disputed domain name was registered and is being used

faith under the doctrine of passive holding The factors usually considered material to such an assessment have been set out in a number of earlier decisions of UDRP panels According to section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 examples of

of bad faith use Applying the passive holding doctrine as summarized in section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 the Panel assesses the Complainant s non-dictionary trademark MITTAL as sufficiently distinctive so that any descriptive use of the

by the Respondent amounts to passive holding of the disputed domain name which it claims does not confer any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name Furthermore the Complainant claims that given the size of its

s present non-use or passive holding of the disputed domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy For all the foregoing reasons the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being

use the Complainant cites the passive holding doctrine articulated in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Telstra The Complainant also argues that the Panel should infer bad faith from the Respondent s use of

DECISION Majid Al Futtaim Holding LLC v Privacy Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Domain Man Case No D2021-3726 1 The Parties The Complainant is Majid Al Futtaim Holding LLC United Arab Emirates represented by Talal Abu Ghazaleh

legitimate rights or interest Passive holding of a disputed domain name incorporating a third-party well-known mark does not normally amount to a bona fide use It is well established that inaction or passive holding can in certain circumstances

use under the doctrine of passive holding See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 As the WIPO Overview 3.0 sets out at section 3.3 panels will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case but

error page Respondent's passive holding of the at-issue domain names indicates that the domain name promotes neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name per Policy � 4 c i or

responded to this Complaint Passive holding of a domain name containing another s distinctive trade mark without explanation is likely bad faith registration and use The Panel also notes that the registrar s parking page to which the disputed

to an inactive page The passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith use MX servers are configured It suggests that the disputed domain name may be actively used for email purposes RESPONDENT The Respondent did not submit

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

each at-issue domain name passively.� Respondent's passive holding of the confusingly similar at-issue domain names indicates Respondent's bad faith registration and use of such domain names under Policy � 4 a iii See VideoLink Inc v Xantech

faith under the doctrine of passive holding The Respondent has not denied the Complainant s allegations of bad faith Taking into account all the circumstances the Panel concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain

Complainant s rights and that passive holding can amount to bad faith use B Respondent The Respondent in an English language email to the Center stated that he would like to release the disputed domain name The Respondent did not reply to the

previous UDRP panels is that passive holding in itself does not preclude a finding of bad faith UDRP panels must examine all the circumstances of the case to determine whether a respondent is acting in bad faith See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel

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

regard the Panel finds that holding a domain name passively without making any use of it also does not confer any rights or legitimate interests on the Respondent see earlier UDRP decisions such as Bollore SE v 赵竹飞 Zhao Zhu Fei WIPO Case No

faith registration and use by passive holding citing Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The Panel notes that in the Nuclear Marshmallows case Telstra was one of the largest if not the largest corporations in

and that Respondent has been passively holding the disputed domain name Complainant concludes that Respondent has been using the disputed domain name in bad faith   NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED Rights Complainant has to

case under the doctrine of passive holding See section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 The Respondent has not filed any response to deny the Complainant s allegations of bad faith In view of the Panel s above finding that the Respondent lacks

as to its registration and passive holding of the confusingly similar disputed domain name Taking all circumstances of this case into consideration the Panel concludes that in the present case the passive holding of the disputed domain name

faith under the doctrine of passive holding See WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 At the time of this Decision the disputed domain name resolves to a website promoting the sale of various discounted Christmas gifts which the panel regards as further

s present non-use or passive holding of the disputed domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy For all the foregoing reasons the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being

that the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes a bad faith use B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4 a of the Policy provides that in

recognized that inaction i.e passive holding in relation to a domain name registration can in certain circumstances constitute use of a domain name in bad faith see WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 Taking into account all of the above it is not

mala fe bajo la doctrina del passive holding Puede consultarse en este sentido la sección 3.3 de la Sinopsis elaborada por la OMPI 3.0 No obstante además en el presente caso los nombres de dominio en disputa no son objeto propiamente de falta de

and contends that such passive use of the disputed domain name is further evidence Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in it See Mayo Found for Med Educ and Research v VMI Inc Case No FA1811001817602 Forum Dec 28 2018 Complaint

website which constitutes passive holding In the WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmellows the Panel established that the registration and passive holding of a domain name which has no other legitimate use and

factors when applying the passive holding doctrine the degree of distinctiveness and/or reputation of the Complainant s trademark the failure of the Respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good faith

resolve to an active website passive holding of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith A finding of bad faith use can be made inter alia where the respondent knew or should have known of the complainant s trademark rights and

shown from the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name Passive holding of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and Novo Nordisk A/S v

the Respondent s passive holding of the Domain Name amounts to use of the Domain Name in bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings A Identical or Confusingly Similar

in UDRP decisions that the passive holding of a domain name that incorporates a registered trademark without a legitimate purpose may indicate that the domain name is being used in bad faith Respondent s failure to use the disputed domain name

bad faith One such factor is passive holding described in section 3.4 of WIPO Overview 3.0 Complainant alleges that Respondent has violated paragraphs 4 b i and 4 b ii of the Policy and the additionally engaged in passive holding as indicators of

faith under the doctrine of passive holding As has been addressed above the disputed domain names are identical to the Complainant s ARLANDA trademark registered in the domicile of the Respondent The term arlanda does not have a dictionary

is a consensus view about passive holding 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

has demonstrated bad faith by passive holding of the disputed domain name Such a finding is consistent with previous UDRP decisions such as Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 See also WIPO Overview 3.0

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

registration and has been passively holding the disputed domain name The Complainant further asserts that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith as the Respondent should have known of the Complainant s MITTAL STEEL