the Panel finds that such passive holding amounts to bad faith Moreover since the MX records attached to the disputed domain name have been activated along with the nature of the disputed domain name being a typo-squatting version of the mark

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 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

website which constitutes passive holding Other panels established that the registration and passive holding of a domain name which has no other legitimate use and clearly refers to the Complainant's trademark may constitute registration and

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

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

domain names ii the present passive holding of three of the disputed domain names constitutes use in bad faith especially since the Respondent has taken steps to mask its identity through WHOIS privacy services and there is no plausible

the sole purpose of continued passive holding the Panel in conclusion finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith Procedural Factors The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were

faith under the doctrine of passive holding See section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 In the circumstances of this proceeding the construction of the disputed domain name and the lack of the Respondent s participation in this proceeding the Panel

further submits that the passive holding of the disputed domain names supports a finding of use in bad faith because they consist of the BELFIUS trademark and it is difficult to imagine any plausible future active use of them by the

the Respondent s 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

finds that the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name does not in these circumstances preclude a finding of bad faith see e.g Telstra Corp Inc v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The Panel therefore finds that the

by the Respondent and the passive holding of the disputed domain name demonstrates the bad faith of the Respondent The Complainant also alleges that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name for scamming purposes The Complainant argues

i or iii due to Respondent's passive holding of the disputed domain name See Dell Inc v link growth / Digital Marketing FA 1785283 Forum June 7 2018 Respondent's domain names currently display template websites lacking any substantive content The

s trademark Accordingly the passive holding of the disputed domain names does not prevent a finding of bad faith On the basis of all the above the Panel finds that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith 7

falling under the doctrine of passive holding It is not necessary for the Respondent s conduct to fall precisely within any of the examples of bad faith registration and use which are set out at paragraph 4 b of the Policy These are only examples

of a given case including passive holding in making its bad faith analysis.� See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows Case No D2000-0003 WIPO Feb 18 2000 after considering all the circumstances of a given case it is possible that

have any active content a passive holding of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings Paragraph 15 a of the Rules instructs this

PANEL DECISION ASOS plc ASOS Holdings Limited and ASOS.com Limited v 姚� 云 Yao Xiao Yun Case No D2021-2849 1 The Parties The Complainants are ASOS plc ASOS Holdings Limited and ASOS.com Limited United Kingdom represented by Stobbs IP Limited

there is no evidence that the passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes a bona fide offering of goods and services nor a demonstrable preparation of such offering III Registered and Used in Bad Faith That the Respondent does not have