procedure and the now passive holding of these domain names indicate that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in it Furthermore in the case of the IKEAQSHOP.COM the Respondent receives profits by offering for sale items

Complainant's mark and by passively holding one of the Domain Names  Also Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the ADDEPAR mark when she registered the Domain Names.    B Respondent Respondent did not submit a Response in

concludes that the present passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes a bad faith use putting emphasis on the following the Complainant s trademarks are famous with strong reputation and are well-known globally the Respondent has

faith under the doctrine of passive holding The Respondents have taken steps to conceal its identity by registering the Disputed Domain Names behind a privacy service and providing false or incomplete contact information The presence of the

submits that by its passive holding the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith v The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the

faith under the doctrine of passive holding which can be applied to the disputed domain name since the Complainant s ELECTROLUX trademark is well-known and it is more than likely that the Respondent was aware of it at the time of its registration

Complainant argues that the passive holding of a domain name does not constitute a legitimate use or bona fide offering of goods or services See Teachers Ins and Annuity Ass'n of Am v Wreaks Commc'ns Group D2006-0483 WIPO June 15 2006 passive

of bad faith under the passive holding doctrine as stated in section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 The Panel therefore finds that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith under paragraph 4 b iv of the Policy 7

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

that the Respondent may be passively holding the disputed domain name that bad faith can be found in the circumstances of this case citing Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The Complainant further submits

and effectively amounts to a passive holding While the cbdistillery.store disputed domain name does not currently resolve to an active site based on the evidence filed by the Complainant and as at the date of filing this disputed domain name

faith under the doctrine of passive holding Whether there is passive holding cannot be answered in abstract but rather the Panel must consider the totality of the circumstances applicable to a specific case Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear

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

It contends that the current passive holding of the disputed domain name remains a use in bad faith under the Policy Together the Complainant submits that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith B Respondent The

3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 passive holding of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith In addition the Panel cannot conceive of any legitimate use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent other than targeting the Complainant s

or use the Domain Names The passive holding of a domain name containing a well-known mark or use of one for pay per click links does not show a legitimate use or bona fide offering of goods and services Respondent does not have any rights or

Respondent may be regarded as passively holding the Domain Name that passive holding constitutes bad faith registration and use of the Domain Name B Respondent The Respondent did not file any Response to the Amended Complaint 6 Discussion and

in UDRP decisions that the passive or inactive 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

The doctrine of so-called passive holding where a disputed domain name resolves to a blank coming soon or similar page has been considered by numerous panels previously In accordance with section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 the relevant

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