faith under the doctrine of passive holding More precisely a passive holding situation constitutes bad faith when associated with other elements such as the degree of notoriety of the mark or the Respondent s lack of response as in the present

domain name resolved to a passive holding parking page run by the Registrar At the time of this Decision the disputed domain name fails to resolve 5 Parties Contentions A Complainant The Complainant asserts that it has prior rights in the

of the Policy In addition the passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy Accordingly the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy 7

the Complainant contends that passive holding can be in bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings To succeed the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements listed in

one within the scope of the passive holding doctrine first set out in WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows The Panel therefore applies the useful summary set out in the WIPO Jurisprudential Overview version

parked page which constitutes passive holding In view of the above the Complainant concluded that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith Rights The Complainant has to the satisfaction of the Panel shown the

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

name by the Complainant Passive holding of the disputed domain name is evidence of bad faith The non-use of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding and its use for purposes other

The Complainant through its holding company Caravaggio Holding France SAS has secured trademark registrations for AMPLITUDE in various jurisdictions including the following French Trademark Registration No 4459973 AMPLITUDE figurative registered

established that having a passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name does not necessarily shield a respondent from a finding of bad faith See WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 which notes that the non-use of a domain name does not prevent a

shares in this case that the passive holding of a domain name with knowledge that the domain name infringes another party s trade mark rights may in itself be regarded as evidence of bad faith registration and use see for example WIPO Case No

content which constitutes passive holding and no other legitimate use so that the clear reference to the Complainant's trademark may constitute registration and use in bad faith Furthermore the Respondent has been using privacy shield to

active use of the domain name passive holding does not prevent a finding of bad faith See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions Third Edition WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows

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 in the disputed domain name on the Respondent see in this regard earlier UDRP decisions such as

active use of the domain name passive holding does not prevent a finding of bad faith See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions Third Edition WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows

faith under the doctrine of passive holding The Complainant´s follows that its trademarks are distinctive and well-known in its industry the Respondent abuses the Complainant´s well-known trademarks for illegal activity the Respondent concealed

function  Respondent's passive holding of the at-issue domain name is not indicative of a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶¶ 4 c i nor of a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4 c iii See Activision Blizzard Inc /

faith under the doctrine of passive holding considering the circumstances of this case See WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 Moreover UDRP panels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar

implausible Thus the current passive holding of some of the disputed domain names does not prevent a finding of bad faith see e.g Abbott Diabetes Care Inc v Privacy Protection Hosting Ukraaine LLC / Ð'италий Броцман Vitalii Brocman

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