that Respondent's inactive holding of the disputed domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use The Panel agrees that the passive holding of a domain name does not necessarily circumvent a finding that the domain name is being used

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

and accordingly it is being passively held Such passive holding does not allow the Respondent to escape a finding of registration and use in bad faith in circumstances where the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant s mark where

factors when applying the passive holding doctrine i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant s mark ii the failure of the Respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use

of another The Respondent is passively holding the Domain Name Passive holding of a domain name containing a mark with a reputation without legitimate excuse is bad faith registration and use See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows

name in bad faith through its passive holding of the domain and the causation of initial interest confusion   DISCUSSION Paragraph 15 a of the Rules instructs this Panel to decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted

this Panel finds that such passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes use in bad faith for the purposes of the Policy There is no reason as to why Respondent would passively hold the disputed domain name Respondent has no rights or

name is the subject of a passive holding which demonstrates the use in bad faith of Respondent Previous panels have found that such behaviour was evidence that Respondent was showing disputed domain name registration and use in bad faith see

the trademarks of another Passive holding of a domain name containing marks with a reputation can be bad faith registration and use See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows D2000-0003 WIPO Feb 18 2000   The Respondent has been the

the Panel finds so-called passive holding in bad faith and so finds registration in bad faith in line with the principles first enunciated in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows D2000-0003 WIPO Feb 18 2000   The Panel finds that

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

this Panel shares 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

faith under the doctrine of passive holding In this regard the Panel is convinced that the current use of the domain name gola-outlet.com cannot be considered in good faith due to the following aspects i distinctiveness of the GOLA s trademarks

4 b and that its continued holding is in bad faith The Complainant reminds the Panel that the consensus view of WIPO UDRP panelists is that passive holding of a disputed domain name may in appropriate circumstances be consistent with a finding

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

an active website but it is passively held as per the so called ‘passive holding doctrine The Complainant further contends that the circumstance that cosmoprof-lasvegas.com resolves to an inactive website leads to a finding of bad faith In this

the at-issue domain name passively Browsing to opploansmyoffer.com returns the message This site can't be reached Respondent's passive holding of the at-issue domain name is not indicative of a bona fide offering of goods or services under

faith under the doctrine of passive holding see for example CAC Case No Amedei S.r.l v sun xin supra The factors that are typically considered when applying the passive holding doctrine include i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the

so this is not a case of passive holding This is not a typosquatting case either The Respondent said it had its own reasons for wanting it due to its reference to the Yolanda Origin Unified Switch It has years of use and this implicates all

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 The Complainant states that the consensus view of WIPO UDRP