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