In particular Respondent's passive holding of the domain name is proof that it lacks any right or legitimate interest in the domain name 8.    Respondent also does not have rights or legitimate interests in the wex.com domain name because

notes that the so-called passive holding of a domain name cannot prevent a finding of bad faith In this present case the Complainant's trademark is highly distinctive and there seems no plausible good faith use for the disputed domain name

contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith see Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd v Whois Agent Whois Privacy Protection Service Inc / Jean-Paul Clozel WIPO Case No D2016-0068 Telstra Corporation Limited

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   Accordingly 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

domain name a practice called passive holding   Because Respondent makes no active use of the domain name it cannot be said to use it in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services within the contemplation of Policy¶4 c i   See for

domain name a practice called passive holding   Because Respondent makes no active use of the domain name it cannot be said to use it in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services within the contemplation of Policy¶4 c ii   See for

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

contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith Examples of what may be cumulative circumstances found to be indicative of bad faith include that no response to the complaint has been filed and the

Complainant argues that the passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name is consistent with a finding of bad faith It relies on the Telstra decision Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and on the panels

domain name is currently held passively does not change this If this fact were to support the Respondent trademark owners would not be able to enforce their trademark rights in a situation such as the one at hand The Panel at least in this kind of

name is available for sale passive holding is sufficient to demonstrate bad faith use This in particular due to the reputation of the Complainant trademarks and the fact that it is not possible to conceive of any plausible good faith use of such

faith under the doctrine of passive holding The Panel agrees that the passive holding of chianticlassico.website without any reasonable explication by the Respondent constitutes a use in bad faith of the domain name for the purposes of the Policy

to a finding of so-called passive holding in bad faith in line with the principles first enunciated in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows D2000-0003 WIPO Feb 18 2000   Returning to the domain name paragraph 4 b of the Policy

The Panel agrees that the passive holding of a domain name does not necessarily circumvent a finding that the domain name is being used in bad faith within the requirements of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy.  See Telstra Corporation Limited v

faith under the doctrine of passive holding The Panel agrees that passive holding of a domain name incorporating a famous trademark constitutes use of the domain name in bad faith and the ignorance of the previous notice further evince the use of

as good faith use either Passive holding can amount to bad faith use as there is no circumstances in which the use of the disputed domain name could be legitimate given Complainant s reputation The Panel thus considers that the disputed domain

Complaint the Respondent was passively holding the disputed domain name Such passive holding is not in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services nor is a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name The

contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith Examples of what may be cumulative circumstances found to be indicative of bad faith include cases in which i the Complainant has a well-known trademark

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