Panels have discussed the passive holding of a domain names e.g in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and found that the passive holding itself can constitute bad faith use The Panel recalls that „the

page which constitutes passive holding Additionally the Complainant tried to reach the Respondent with the notice of cease-and-desist letter sent on April 20 2022 to the Respondent's email as provided in the WHOIS However until the

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

the Complainant in respect of passive holding but does not need to address them given the clear basis on the basis of other submissions and evidence for finding that that paragraph 4 a iii has been satisfied Procedural Factors The Panel is

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

be met under the doctrine of passive holding giving close attention to all circumstances of the Respondent's behaviour see for example WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The Panel having taken into account the distinctiveness of the well-known Complainant's

s genuine website or passive holding of the disputed domain names cannot constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services The Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain names The Respondent is not making a legitimate

content which constitutes passive holding 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 use in bad faith RESPONDENT The

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

the Panel finds Respondent's passive holding of the domain name satisfies the requirement of paragraph 4 a iii that the bitmex.site domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith by Respondent   Complainant argues that the disputed

to an inactive web site.  Passive holding of a domain name is evidence of bad faith.  This may not fit within any of the circumstances described in Policy ¶ 4 b but that paragraph recognizes that mischief can assume many different forms and

according to the doctrine of passive holding The Complainant concludes that the disputed domain names were registered has been and are being used in bad faith by the Respondent Rights The Complainant has to the satisfaction of the Panel shown the

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

states Respondent only has passive holding of the disputed domain name resolving to a website that lacks substantive content If a respondent uses a domain name to host an inactive or passive website the Panel may find bad faith under Policy ¶ 4

and so the Panel finds passive holding in bad faith in line with the reasoning in the decision of Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 which the Panel considers to directly apply to the circumstances of

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

argument of non-use/passive holding Thirdly the Complainant contends that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith for the following reasons i Speculation in domain names ii Holding domain name for purposes of selling

decisions confirmed that the passive holding of a domain name with knowledge that the domain name infringes another party s trademark rights is evidence of bad faith registration and use see in this regard Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear

among UDRP panelists that a passive holding of a disputed domain name may in appropriate circumstances be consistent with the finding of bad faith in particular in circumstances in which for example a complainant s trademark is well-known and