this Panel finds that the passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes use in bad faith for the purposes of this Complaint   This finding is supported by the fact that Responded availed of a privacy service to conceal his identity on

panels have discussed the passive holding of 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

LyondellBasell Industries Holdings B.V and Lyondell Chemical Company are two of these affiliated companies under the umbrella of LyondellBasell Group it notes that t he Complainant of this administrative proceeding is LyondellBasell Industries

disputed domain name is being passively held by the Respondent and is inactive and when searched for generates a message that states that the website cannot be found This Panel finds therefore that such passive holding allows this Panel to make a

in respect of the passive holding of the disputed domain name by the Respondent and on the configuration of MX servers for the future purpose of e-mail by the Respondent for which evidence was supplied by the Complainant asking that the

faith under the doctrine of passive holding In the WIPO Case No D2006-1440 National Football League v Thomas Trainer the Panel stated when a registrant such as the Respondent here obtains a domain name that is confusingly similar to a famous mark

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 Policy ¶¶ 4 c i nor of a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4 c iii See Kohler Co v xi long chen

certain circumstances the passive holding of a domain name cannot prevent a finding of bad faith Factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the

3.0 2.1   MORGAN STANLEY   passive holding Teachers Ins and Annuity Ass'n of Am Wreaks Commc'ns Group WIPO D2006-0483 TMP Int'l Inc v Baker Enters FA 204112 Forum Dec 6 2003   Pfizer Inc and Pfizer Enterprises SARL v Domain Purchase FA 328187

indicia of bad faith such as passive holding failure to respond to a complaint installation of malware typosquatting etc.  The Panel is not persuaded.  Respondent's wrongful appropriation of Complainant's mark amounts to taking advantage of a

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

related business Respondent's passive holding of avalonmetroproperties.com shows Respondent's bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4 a iii See Regions Bank v Darla atkins FA 1786409 Forum June 20 2018 Respondent registered and is using the

According to the doctrine of passive holding the non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith see e.g paragraph 3.3 of the WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No

iv above and paragraph 3.3 passive holding of the WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 to form the Panel's view on the use of the disputed domain names under this Policy ground In the Panel s assessment the factors which attach weight to the

that the Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name a potential ground for a finding of bad faith Factors relevant to the application of the passive holding doctrine include i the degree of distinctiveness of reputation of the

to an active web site i.e is passively held As established in a number of prior cases the concept of bad faith use in paragraph 4 b of the Policy includes not only positive action but also passive holding especially in cases of domain name

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

disputed domain name is being passively held As found in section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 f rom the inception of the UDRP panelists have found that the non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of

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 as here the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the

domain names are being passively held by Respondent their current use or lack thereof does not diminish the effect of their prior use to pose as and compete with Complainant Even if it did Respondent's passive holding is in itself an