implausible Thus the current passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith see e.g Abbott Diabetes Care Inc v Privacy Protection Hosting Ukraaine LLC / �'италий Броцман Vitalii Brocman WIPO Case

of another The Respondent is passively holding the Domain Name containing the Complainant's mark with a reputation for legal services Passive holding of a domain name containing a mark with a reputation without legitimate excuse is bad faith

to an inactive web site.� Passive holding of a domain name is evidence of bad faith.� This may not fit within any of the circumstances described in Policy � 4 b but that paragraph recognizes that mischief can assume many different forms and

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

page This use constitutes a passive holding that can clearly be regarded as an indication of bad faith use The lack of use of the Disputed Domain Names in working corresponding websites and the Respondent s failure to reply to the Complainant s

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

to an active website The passive holding of a domain name may amount to bad faith when it is difficult to imagine any plausible future active use of a domain name by the respondent that would be legitimate and would not interfere with the

circumstances of the case the passive holding of a domain name can indicate the use in bad faith paragraph 4 b recognizes that inaction e.g passive holding in relation to a domain name registration can in certain circumstances constitute a domain

of another The Respondent is passively holding the Domain Name Passive holding of a domain name containing a well known mark without legitimate excuse is bad faith registration and use See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows

of another The Respondent is passively holding the Domain Name Passive holding of a domain name containing a well known mark without legitimate excuse is bad faith registration and use See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows

plc Rational Intellectual Holdings Limited v Kevin Drotzur Case No D2022-0355 1 The Parties The Complainants are Flutter Entertainment plc and Rational Intellectual Holdings Limited Ireland represented by Demys Limited United Kingdom the

as it constitutes evidence of passive holding of the disputed domain name by the Respondent Additional circumstances in support of this finding include i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the Complainant s mark ii the failure of the

the ALLIED UNIVERSAL mark Passive holding of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith Respondent s non-use of the disputed domain name for an active website still indicates bad faith in the registration and holding of the disputed

Panel notes that the current passive holding does not preclude a finding of bad faith see Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 In fact the further circumstances surrounding the disputed domain name s

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

that lack content or generic holding pages Respondent's passive holding of at-issue domain names constitutes neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy � 4 c i or iii See Guess IP Holder

faith under the doctrine of passive holding As stressed by many previous UDRP decisions While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding

use under the doctrine of passive holding see WIPO Overview section 3.3 In addition the Panel is aware of UDRP decisions such as Blackbaud Inc v Jenkins Alumona Sugarcane Internet Nigeria Limited WIPO Case No D2022-0104 which clearly suggest

falls within the doctrine of passive holding Indeed i the Complainant s trademark is intrinsically distinctive and enjoys a reputation ii the Respondent has failed to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated

decisions confirm that the passive holding of a domain name with knowledge that the domain name infringes another party s trademark rights is evidence of bad faith registration and use Panels have tended to make such findings in circumstances in

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 Dermtek Pharmaceuticals Ltd v

have any active content a passive holding of a domain name does not necessarily prevent a finding of bad faith Moreover in the present circumstances the Panel finds it implausible that the Domain Name could be put to any good faith use by the

contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith Examples of what may be cumulative circumstances found to be indicative of bad faith include cases in which i the Complainant has a well-known trademark

directly under the rubric of passive holding as first enunciated in the case of Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and followed in countless cases since.� The Panel finds bad faith use in line with the

well-established doctrine of passive holding B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings Even if the Respondent did not file a Response to the Complainant s contentions the Panel shall

the Disputed Domain Name The passive holding or non-use of domain names is in appropriate circumstances evidence of a lack of rights or legitimate interests in the domain names see Red Bull GmbH v Credit du Léman SA Jean-Denis Deletraz WIPO Case

faith under the doctrine of passive holding See section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 The Panel believes that the Respondent was or ought to have been aware of the fame of the Complainant s ONLYFANS trademark at the time of the registration of the

3.1.4 Third inactive or passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name by the Respondent does not prevent a finding of bad faith See Advance Magazine Publishers Inc and Les Publications Condé Nast S.A v ChinaVogue.com WIPO Case No D2005-0615

the Disputed Domain Name The passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name did not prevent previous Panels from making a finding that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith The Complainant requests the transfer of the Disputed

to use the Domain Name The passive holding of a domain name containing a well-known mark does not show a legitimate use or bona fide offering of goods and services There has been a notification that the site might be blocked for a security

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

of a given case including passive holding in making its bad faith analysis.� See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows Case No D2000-0003 WIPO Feb 18 2000 after considering all the circumstances of a given case it is possible that

in cases involving passive holding or non-use of a domain name 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

also contends that passive holding does not preclude a finding of bad faith thus the state of inactivity does not mean that the Disputed Domain Names are used in good faith Further the Respondents have not yet replied and simply

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

faith under the doctrine of passive holding Rather panellists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case including i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant s mark ii the failure of the respondent to submit

found 404 error Respondent's passive holding of the at-issue domain name shows neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy � 4 c ii nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy � 4 c iv See VICORP Rests Inc v Paradigm

names extends to its current passive holding of them both because we can conceive of no legitimate use to which Respondent might put them and because Respondent has exhibited untrustworthiness in using a multiplicity of identities with the evident

of this case the current passive holding of two of the disputed domain names does not prevent a finding of bad faith For the reasons above the Respondent s conduct has to be considered in this Panel s view as bad faith registration and use of

to its website ii even passive holding of the disputed domain name does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services At last the Complainant claims that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in 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

which the Respondent may be holding are not of significance unless these were to demonstrate that the Respondent is engaged in a pattern of conduct corresponding to paragraph 4 b ii of the Policy The Complainant has made no such allegation

disputed domain name is being passively held by the Respondent since it is not being used in relation to an active website The Complainant concludes that passive holding of the disputed domain name indicates the use in bad faith in accordance with

faith under the doctrine of passive holding Section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 further states While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding

notes in this connection that passive holding of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith use under paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy Procedural Factors The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and

faith under the doctrine of passive holding In view of the Panel the Respondent s lack of any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name the absence of any conceivable good faith use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent

faith under the doctrine of passive holding See section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 Moreover there is no evidence showing that Respondent has been commonly known by the Domain Name Additionally the Domain Name was listed for sell on a

possible that a r espondent's passive holding amounts to bad faith Telstra supra stating that the Policy recognizes that inaction e.g passive holding in relation to a domain name registration can in certain circumstances constitute a domain name

Panel notes that the current passive holding does not preclude a finding of bad faith see Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Finally the further circumstances surrounding the disputed domain name s

UDRP panels have held that passive holding of a domain name could amount to use in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy Factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include i the