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