case under the doctrine of passive holding See section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 The Respondent has not filed any response to deny the Complainant s allegations of bad faith In view of the Panel s above finding that the Respondent lacks

as to its registration and passive holding of the confusingly similar disputed domain name Taking all circumstances of this case into consideration the Panel concludes that in the present case the passive holding of the disputed domain name

faith under the doctrine of passive holding See WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 At the time of this Decision the disputed domain name resolves to a website promoting the sale of various discounted Christmas gifts which the panel regards as further

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

that the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes a bad faith use B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4 a of the Policy provides that in

recognized that inaction i.e passive holding in relation to a domain name registration can in certain circumstances constitute use of a domain name in bad faith see WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 Taking into account all of the above it is not

mala fe bajo la doctrina del passive holding Puede consultarse en este sentido la sección 3.3 de la Sinopsis elaborada por la OMPI 3.0 No obstante además en el presente caso los nombres de dominio en disputa no son objeto propiamente de falta de

and contends that such passive use of the disputed domain name is further evidence Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in it See Mayo Found for Med Educ and Research v VMI Inc Case No FA1811001817602 Forum Dec 28 2018 Complaint

website which constitutes passive holding In the WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmellows the Panel established that the registration and passive holding of a domain name which has no other legitimate use and

factors when applying the passive holding doctrine the degree of distinctiveness and/or reputation of the Complainant s trademark the failure of the Respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good faith

resolve to an active website passive holding of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith A finding of bad faith use can be made inter alia where the respondent knew or should have known of the complainant s trademark rights and

shown from the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name Passive holding of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and Novo Nordisk A/S v

the Respondent s passive holding of the Domain Name amounts to use of the Domain Name in bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings A Identical or Confusingly Similar

in UDRP decisions that the passive holding of a domain name that incorporates a registered trademark without a legitimate purpose may indicate that the domain name is being used in bad faith Respondent s failure to use the disputed domain name

bad faith One such factor is passive holding described in section 3.4 of WIPO Overview 3.0 Complainant alleges that Respondent has violated paragraphs 4 b i and 4 b ii of the Policy and the additionally engaged in passive holding as indicators of

faith under the doctrine of passive holding As has been addressed above the disputed domain names are identical to the Complainant s ARLANDA trademark registered in the domicile of the Respondent The term arlanda does not have a dictionary

is a consensus view about passive holding From the inception of the UDRP panelists have found that the non-use of a domain name including a blank or ‘coming soon page would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive

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 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

registration and has been passively holding the disputed domain name The Complainant further asserts that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith as the Respondent should have known of the Complainant s MITTAL STEEL