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

faith under the doctrine of passive holding The Panel has hence reviewed all elements of this case and attaches particular relevance to the following elements to assert use in bad faith Firstly the Panel notes that when the Respondent registered

webpage the doctrine of passive holding must be applied Indeed the Complainant underlines that the contact information provided by the Respondent when registering the disputed domain name is most likely false as it corresponds to that of an

website Regarding the passive holding of the disputed domain name by Respondent Complainant relies that the non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding Besides Complainant puts

faith under the doctrine of passive holding In similar situations UDRP panelists look into the totality of circumstances in a specific case including the following i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant s mark ii the

faith under the doctrine of passive holding 4 Among factors indicating bad faith use of a domain name the implausibility of any good faith use is relevant in this case The Respondent s prior use of the Domain Name for a website purportedly

3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 passive holding of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith For the reasons set out above the Panel finds that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith and that

faith under the doctrine of passive holding See section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 The Respondent also used a privacy WhoIs service to hide its identity which confirms bad faith registration and use Moreover the Respondent has chosen not to

faith under the doctrine of passive holding See section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 The Respondent also used a privacy WhoIs service to hide its identity which confirms bad faith registration and use Moreover the Respondent has chosen not to

The Panel is of the view that passively holding a domain name may not lead to bad faith as long as it does not infringe any 3rd party right However the Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name that is confusingly similar to

noncommercial or fair use   Passive holding of a domain name containing a sign confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark disrupts the Complainant's business and is opportunistic registration and use in bad faith Typosquatting is registration

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

and other brands Finally passively holding a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 states While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case factors that have been considered

faith under the doctrine of passive holding See WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 Given the combination of these factors the Panel concludes that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith 7 Decision For the

faith under the doctrine of passive holding According to the Complainant as WOODBRASS trademarks are highly distinctive and well-known in the field of musical equipment and apparatus retailing and as the Complainant has never granted any rights

established that inaction or passive holding can in certain circumstances constitute bad faith use See CBS Broadcasting Inc v Edward Enterprises WIPO Case No D2000-0242 Here with no explanation from Respondent concerning its intent their passive

faith under the doctrine of passive holding While UDRP 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

is effectively engaged in passive holding of the disputed domain name within the terms originally established by Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The panel in Telstra noted that the question as to which

City Electric BGE and Pepco Holdings LLC The Complainant owns registrations for EXELON trademarks including the United States trademark registration No 2409546 registered on November 28 2000 The Complainant s subsidiary Pepco Holdings LLC owns

faith under the doctrine of passive holding in this case WIPO Overview 3.0 at section 3.3 Further the Panel also finds that the Respondent s pattern of bad faith conduct has satisfied paragraph 4 b ii of the Policy WIPO Overview 3.0 at section