faith under the doctrine of passive holding The disputed domain name is also confusingly similar to Complainant s domain name safran-group.com Registering a domain name that is very close to a known domain name is typosquatting and is based on

Respondent now appears to be passively holding Pursuant to paragraph 4 c of the Policy a respondent may establish rights or legitimate interests in a domain name by demonstrating any of the following i before any notice to it of the dispute the

Complainant s rights and the passive holding of the disputed domain name does not preclude a finding of bad faith B Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4 a of the Policy provides

which the panels found that passive holding under the totality of circumstances of the case can indeed constitute a bad faith use under the Policy In this regard the Complainant submits that when considering whether the passive holding of a

to address whether the passive holding of the disputed domain name could characterize the Respondent s bad faith The WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 indicates that ‘ w hile panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each

under the Policy that the passive holding of a disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under certain circumstances such as the nature and notoriety of a complainant s mark and the lack of any credible good faith explanation

interests in the Domain Name Passive holding of a confusingly similar domain name containing a third party mark with prior rights is evidence of registration and use in bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s

faith under the doctrine of passive holding Previous UDRP panels have held that the passive holding of a domain name that incorporates a well‑known trademark may amount to bad faith use of a disputed domain name in appropriate circumstances see

faith under the doctrine of passive holding See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Jupiters Limited v Aaron Hall WIPO Case No D2000-0574 In light of the above facts and reasons the Panel therefore

beautiful The Respondent s passive holding of this disputed domain name qualifies as use in bad faith in this case Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The Panel notes the reputation of the Complainant s

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

and that notwithstanding its passive holding of the disputed domain name prior to the filing of the Complaint the evidence demonstrates that the Respondent targeted the Complainant and its Trade Mark in purchasing the disputed domain name The

faith under the doctrine of passive holding The Complainant states that there is no legitimate use that could be made of the disputed domain name and the Respondent never responded to the Complainant s cease-and-desist letter and to the reminder

faith under the doctrine of passive holding see section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 The factors that are typically considered when applying the passive holding doctrine include i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant s

and use under the passive holding doctrine as can be seen on Annex 05 to the Complaint the disputed domain name resolves to a website which is inactive As discussed in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No

name by its non-use/passive holding The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not commonly known by a disputed domain name because the Whois information is not similar to the disputed domain name The Complainant contends that the Respondent

in respect of the passive holding of the disputed domain name by the Respondent and on the configuration of MX servers for the future purpose of email by the Respondent for which evidence was supplied by the Complainant The Panel

the Respondent s non-use or passive holding of the disputed domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith registration or use under the Policy Accordingly the Complainant has fulfilled the third condition of paragraph 4 a of the Policy 7

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 Section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 Having considered the reputation of the Complainant s mark CALVIN KLEIN and the failure of the Respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of bona