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