Recent Case Activity

Displaying results 1 - 100 of 8194 matches
20|50|100 results per page
Case Number Domain(s) Complainant Respondent Ruleset Status
2008470
thinkbank.online
Think Mutual BankJESUS RIESCO MILLAUDRP23-Sep-2022
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
2008845
vacacionesdisney.com
Disney Enterprises, Inc.Dueño Carlo Piccini Meza / Renacteur, S.A. de C.V.UDRP22-Sep-2022
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
2008452
sulllcrom.com
Sullivan & Cromwell LLPAshley DyeUDRP22-Sep-2022
the trade mark of another Passive holding of a domain name containing a mark with a reputation can be bad faith registration and use See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows D2000-0003 WIPO Feb 18 2000   As such the Panel holds
2009269
e-tradesfx.com
E*Trade Financial Holdings, LLCMike omyerUDRP20-Sep-2022
DECISION   E Trade Financial Holdings LLC v Mike omyer Claim Number FA2208002009269   PARTIES Complainant is E Trade Financial Holdings LLC Complainant represented by Eric J Shimanoff of Cowan Liebowitz & Latman P.C New York USA.  Respondent is
2009483
northstarmovingllc.com
NorthStar Moving Holding CompanyDiseno WebUDRP19-Sep-2022
DECISION   NorthStar Moving Holding Company v Diseno Web Claim Number FA2208002009483   PARTIES Complainant is NorthStar Moving Holding Company Complainant represented by Deborah A Gubernick of SNELL & WILMER L.L.P California USA.  Respondent is
2008680
toycta-europe.com
Toyota Motor CorporationTodd HunterUDRP15-Sep-2022
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
2007571
bitmex1.xyz
HDR Global Trading LimitedJacob Tan Zhang En, Perfso TechnologyUDRP14-Sep-2022
domain name resolves to a passive landing page that states This site can't be reached bitmex1.xyz's server IP address could not be found   On March 10 2022 and again on March 30 2022 Complainant attempted to contact Respondent to resolve this
2008208
taboola.host
Taboola.com Ltd.jiang zanUDRP13-Sep-2022
search services is being passively held with a limited holding page without any explanation causing disruption to the Complainant's business TABOOLA is distinctive and not a descriptive term   The overriding objective of the Policy is to curb
2006834
marinaabaysands.com
marinabaysandco.com
marinabaysands-sgp.com
[4 MORE]
Las Vegas Sands Corp.hu luo / lewansi / theonesUDRP13-Sep-2022
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
2008197
abbvle.net
AbbVie, Inc.Allergan ARUDRP12-Sep-2022
could be used to deceive   Passive holding of a domain name containing a sign confusingly similar to a famous mark disrupts the Complainant's business and is opportunistic registration and use in bad faith Typosquatting and causing confusion by
2006833
morqanstanley.cam
Morgan StanleyAndrew Pet / Murry LawUDRP29-Aug-2022
is confusing and disruptive Passive holding of a mark with a reputation is registration and use in bad faith also   B Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding   FINDINGS The Complainant is the owner of the MORGAN
2006430
airdna.com
AirDNA, LLCding zhi qiang / bei jing yi rui sheng wu ji shu you xian gong siUDRP29-Aug-2022
fair use Rather Respondent is passively holding the domain name which does not resolve to an active website   Because Respondent's information is not publicly available Complainant does not have information regarding the date of registration of the
2005856
cp-morganstanley.com
noreply-morganstanley.com
Morgan StanleyJoseph Heard / Eula FoxUDRP26-Aug-2022
each at-issue domain name passively.  Respondent's passive holding of the confusingly similar at-issue domain names indicates Respondent's bad faith registration and use of such domain names under Policy ¶ 4 a iii See VideoLink Inc v Xantech
2004697
nutramaxwell.com
Nutramax Laboratories, Inc.Celine / NUTRAMAXWELL NETWORK TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.UDRP22-Aug-2022
way that there may be passive holding in bad faith.  The Panel finds that Complainant has failed to establish that the domain name was registered and used in bad faith   DECISION Having failed to establish one of the three elements required
2004692
marlbororeds.net
PHILIP MORRIS USA INC.Leighton Stollard / SuperMegaUDRP22-Aug-2022
domain name and that such passive use does not constitute either a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use  It is of course well-established that passive holding of a domain
2004363
emersonokta.com
Emerson Electric Co.Domain Admin / Domain Privacy Guard Sociedad Anónima LtdUDRP19-Aug-2022
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
104709
arcelormittal-associates.com
ARCELORMITTAL (SA)Anonymous Anonymous19-Aug-2022
name is inactive and such passive holding is an indication of bad faith in the circumstances of this case As has been considered by past UDRP panels in similar cases Panels have considered a number of factors when applying the passive holding
2005529
bitmexfinance.com
HDR Global Trading Limitedmaurice leonard, book fandationUDRP18-Aug-2022
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   In addition referring again to the screen
104716
arla-international.com
Arla Foods AmbaSaeed Hernandez18-Aug-2022
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 use in bad faith see Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear
104671
adeccousainc.com
Adecco Group AGLiquine Services17-Aug-2022
been in bad faith Also the passive holding of the disputed domain name without resolving to an active website and with presumed knowledge of the corresponding trademark rights of the Complainant indicates that the Respondent has registered and
104717
arcelomittalsa.com
ARCELORMITTAL (SA)Bestinrnarknet17-Aug-2022
domain name as well as the passive holding of the disputed domain name all show that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith In lack of any Response from the Respondent or any other information indicating the
2005226
ditchwitch-iowa.com
The Charles Machine Works, Inc.mvgwdbdmi mvgwdbdmiUDRP16-Aug-2022
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
2004766
lockheedmartin-engineering.com
Lockheed Martin CorporationStephen WilsonUDRP16-Aug-2022
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
104728
microsoft800.com
Microsoft Corporationqian su16-Aug-2022
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
2005023
abbivve.com
AbbVie Inc.Zeddicus ZeddUDRP15-Aug-2022
2018 finding the Respondent's passive holding of abbvie-jp.com constituted bad faith under the Policy Microsoft Corporation v zaberis FA 1631367 Forum Sept 2 2015 finding that the passive holding of the domain name combined with Microsoft's good
2004840
morganstanley-bonds.com
morganstanleybonds.com
Morgan StanleyHost Master / 1337 Services LLCUDRP15-Aug-2022
each at-issue domain name passively.  Respondent's passive holding of the confusingly similar at-issue domain names indicates Respondent's bad faith registration and use of such domain names under Policy ¶ 4 a iii See VideoLink Inc v Xantech
2004853
cboermc.com
Cboe Exchange, Inc.\ucc3d\ud604 \uc774UDRP15-Aug-2022
the trade mark of another Passive holding of a domain name containing a mark with a reputation can be bad faith registration and use See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows D2000-0003 WIPO Feb 18 2000   Further Respondent has
2000357
medicalert.africa
MedicAlert Foundation United States, Inc.ZA Domains / ZA Domains PTY LTDUDRP15-Aug-2022
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
104656
alrlafoods.com
Arla Foods AmbaXong Vang15-Aug-2022
faith under the doctrine of passive holding Previously panels stated the following The Panel established that the registration and passive holding of a domain name which has no other legitimate use and clearly refers to the Complainant's
104705
arcelormittal-limited.com
arcelormittal-limited.net
ARCELORMITTAL (SA)Fastloc Inc12-Aug-2022
It is commonly referred to as passive holding Whilst it is true that the passive holding of a domain name may in appropriate circumstances be indicative of bad faith It will only be so indicative when all the circumstances of the Respondent's
2004784
statefarmev.com
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance CompanyRichard GlebaUDRP11-Aug-2022
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
104679
4505.com
ASOS plcMANZU WANG11-Aug-2022
parking pages or blank pages passive holding which is sufficient to demonstrate bad faith use Passive holding of a domain name can be bad faith when the Complainant s mark has a strong reputation and the Respondent has provided no evidence of any
104696
lovehoneygroup.net
Lovehoney Group Limited Amanda Lee10-Aug-2022
this Panel equivalent to The Passive Holding Doctrine Point 3.3 of the WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 has established in relation to the Passive Holding Doctrine that From the inception of the UDRP panelists have found that the non-use of a
104708
isabelmarantfr.com
IM PRODUCTIONFengshuying Feng08-Aug-2022
contact the trade mark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith The panel must examine all the circumstances of the case to determine whether the respondent is acting in bad faith Examples of what may be cumulative
2003168
dellvip.com
Dell Inc.Fu Jian Zhou / Cheng Du Si Wei De Li Ke Ji You Xian Gong SiUDRP05-Aug-2022
details This is effectively passive use and not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non commercial fair use of the Domain Name Passive use in these circumstances is bad faith   B Respondent Respondent failed to submit a
2003497
thoughtworks.store
Thoughtworks, Inc.Shield WhoisURS05-Aug-2022
could be put and so finds passive holding and ‘use in bad faith   DETERMINATION After reviewing the Complainant's submissions the Examiner determines that the Complainant has demonstrated all three elements of the URS by a standard of clear and
2003469
e-tradefinancial.com
E*Trade Financial Holdings, LLCBharat Pateliya / E-TRADE FINANCIAL PVT. LTD.UDRP03-Aug-2022
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
104645
migrosbank-ag.com
MIGROS-GENOSSENSCHAFTS-BUNDGray Hunt03-Aug-2022
use under the doctrine of passive holding if certain circumstances are met The Panel finds that on the balance of probabilities it can be presumed that the Respondent had actual knowledge of the existence of the Complainant and its activities
2004007
bnpparibas.top
bnpparibasfortis.top
BNP PARIBAS张朋 et al.URS02-Aug-2022
Examiner observes that the passive holding of a domain name does not necessarily circumvent a finding that the domain name is being used in bad faith Given the circumstances that i Complainant is known as one of the most famous banks in the
104689
corporate-mi-intesasanpaolo.com
Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A.DANILO PISCHIUTTA02-Aug-2022
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
2002667
bloomberginc.org
Bloomberg Finance L.P.Ivan IvanovUDRP01-Aug-2022
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
2002686
wanderlistofficial.com
Virtuoso, Ltd.Cru EatonUDRP01-Aug-2022
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
2001707
cboebiz.com
cboeep.com
cboepws.com
Cboe Exchange, Inc.main main / mainUDRP01-Aug-2022
non-use constitutes so-called passive holding in bad faith.  Complainant has attempted neither and so the Panel must find that the Complaint has not been established with respect to the cboepws.com domain name.    DECISION Having established all
2001175
gear-wrench.com
Apex Brands, Inc.Chen xiansheng / chenxianshengUDRP01-Aug-2022
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
2002681
bloombergdesignxchange.com
Bloomberg Finance L.P.Bloomberg Currie / Currie CreedUDRP29-Jul-2022
The Panel observes 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
2000343
huntsmangroups.com
Huntsman International LLCRonald MawejjeUDRP29-Jul-2022
and the Panel rejects the passive holding argument   Taking into account the factors first discussed above however the evidence furnished by Complainant establishes the required prima facie case.  On that evidence and in the absence of any
104654
de-arcelormittal.com
ARCELORMITTAL (SA)ArcelorMittal Germany Holding GmbH28-Jul-2022
faith under the doctrine of passive holding While panellists 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
104676
altarea-gestion.com
ALTAREARedacted for privacy28-Jul-2022
The disputed domain name is passively held at the time of the filing of the Complaint Such passive holding does not prevent bad faith use of the disputed domain name in circumstances where the disputed domain name is identical to the
2000776
guess-work.com
Guess? IP Holder L.P. and Guess?, Inc.Luke Guess / GuessworkUDRP27-Jul-2022
true of intellectual property holding companies and their corporate parents.  Guess IP Holder L.P and Guess Inc v New Ventures Services Corp FA1901001825019 Forum Feb 10 2019 Complainant Guess IP Holder is a holding company concerned with
2002666
bloombergnewsagency.com
Bloomberg Finance L.P.Garry Porter / UpworkUDRP26-Jul-2022
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
2000409
bunqe.com
Bunge LimitedRuiz Romero / Zinco Business SolutionsUDRP26-Jul-2022
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
2002105
wellsfargotracer.us
Wells Fargo & CompanyDomain Administrator / Wells Fargo CompanyUDRP25-Jul-2022
to an inactive website.  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
2001219
dorseywhitneylaw.com
Dorsey & Whitney LLPBrown FirmUDRP25-Jul-2022
the at-issue domain name passively Browsing to dorseywhitneylaw.com returns a system error message 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
1999970
cboeanc.com
cboeapp.com
cboefis.com
[3 MORE]
Cboe Exchange, Inc.main main / mainUDRP25-Jul-2022
The Panel observes 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
104644
identification-boursorama.com
BOURSORAMA SAAnonymize, Inc.25-Jul-2022
domain name in this case is passively held but for no conceivably lawful use Telstra supra also National Football League v Thomas Trainer D2006-1440 WIPO December 29 2006 nflnetwork.com holding that when a registrant such as respondent here
2002182
statefarminsrance.org
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance CompanyRichard Wilson / state farm insuranceUDRP21-Jul-2022
Domain Name has not been used Passive holding can evidence registration and use in bad faith under the Policy in these circumstances See Indiana University v Ryan G Foo / PPA Media Services FA1411001588079 Forum Dec 28 2014 Under the circumstances
2002147
statefarmcrypto.com
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance CompanyDusty JonesUDRP21-Jul-2022
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
2002098
e-trade.space
E*Trade Financial Holdings, LLCSebastien MeneUDRP21-Jul-2022
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
2001074
blink-outdoorcamera.com
blink-product.club
blink-product.store
[1 MORE]
Amazon Technologies, Inc.Yuan Yan He / Scot G. KomarUDRP21-Jul-2022
appears to be presently passively holding the disputed domain names and in the circumstances described above such passive holding constitutes bad faith use of the disputed domain names for the purposes of the policy given the reputation of
2000887
metaversestatefarm.com
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance CompanyAnali CortezUDRP20-Jul-2022
has not otherwise been used Passive holding can evidence registration and use in bad faith under the Policy See Indiana University v Ryan G Foo / PPA Media Services FA1411001588079 Forum Dec 28 2014 Under the circumstances Respondent's seemingly
104618
fabricloropiana.com
Loro Piana S.p.A.DOMAIN IS FOR SALE AT WWW.DYNADOT.COM ---- c/o Dynadot15-Jul-2022
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
2000855
aglient.com
Agilent Technologies, Inc.Domain Administrator / Fundacion Privacy Services LTDUDRP14-Jul-2022
website and Respondent's passive holding of the disputed domain name in these circumstances constitutes warehousing See Morgan Stanley v Koornwinder FA 1913775 Passive holding of a domain name containing a mark with a reputation can be bad
1999065
openbots.com
OpenBots, Inc.Luciano CoelhoUDRP13-Jul-2022
s to an inactive webpage the passive and inactive holding of a disputed domain name can constitute bad faith Respondent has taken active steps to conceal its true identity and used a privacy service prior to disclosure of the underlying registrant
1998949
lordandtayloer.com
Lord & Taylor IP LLCcheng ao liuUDRP13-Jul-2022
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
104642
ikks.vip
IKKS GROUPXiang Gang13-Jul-2022
According to the Panel a passive holding of the disputed domain name may amount to bad faith when it is difficult to imagine any plausible future active use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent that would be legitimate and not
104641
arcelormitlal.com
ARCELORMITTAL (SA)LTD MAPRI EHITUS12-Jul-2022
faith under the doctrine of passive holding and for this purpose the following factors should be taken into account i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant s mark ii the failure of the respondent to submit a response or
1999985
roberthalfconsultants.com
Robert Half International Inc.Aris Blackmore / Aris GatesUDRP11-Jul-2022
the at-issue domain name passively Browsing to roberthalfconsultants.com returns a system error page The generic page sets out possible explanations as to why no content is reached via the domain name Respondent's passive holding of the
1999636
jobs-dell.com
jobs-dell.xyz
Dell Inc.mr dell / flashinessUDRP11-Jul-2022
the evidence shows that this passive holding of the disputed domain names on the balance of probabilities constitutes bad faith use   As this Panel has found that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith
1996936
disney-star.com
Disney Enterprises, Inc.hideUDRP11-Jul-2022
faith… and T he Respondent's passive holding of the domain name … satisfies the requirement of paragraph 4 a iii that the domain name is being used in bad faith by Respondent   See also Regions Bank v Darla Atkins FA 1786409 Forum June 20 2018  
104622
intesasanpaolo.credit
Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A.Alexander Alberht11-Jul-2022
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
104605
lovehoneyworld.com
Lovehoney Group LimitedRicardo Lin11-Jul-2022
Panel notes that the current passive holding does not preclude a finding of bad faith see Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 In fact the further circumstances surrounding the disputed domain name s
2000433
schaefer-guess.com
Guess? IP Holder L.P. and Guess?, Inc.On the Beach Limited / Flights TeamUDRP08-Jul-2022
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
1998526
rockhardtools.com
Rockhard Tools, Inc.jeff mcclureUDRP08-Jul-2022
¶ 4 c ii EMVCo LLC c/o Visa Holdings v Domain Administrator/ China Capital Investment Limited FA 1732580 Forum June 26 2017 finding that the disputed domain names resolved to webpages that recite only the words ‘Coming Soon and therefore holding
104609
colruytgroep.com
Etablissementen Franz Colruyt N.V.Johnson ZHANG08-Jul-2022
faith under the doctrine of passive holding The panel must examine all the circumstances of the case to determine whether the respondent is acting in bad faith Examples of what may be cumulative circumstances found to be indicative of bad faith
104628
novartisit.com
Novartis AGNovatris it08-Jul-2022
faith under the doctrine of passive holding Factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant s mark ii the failure of the respondent to
104611
sexlovehoney.com
Lovehoney Group LimitedJulisof JuliBup08-Jul-2022
nor does the Respondent s passive holding of the domain name amount to making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of it The Complainant having made out a prima facie case in relation to the second element the burden of proof shifts to the
104620
intesasanpaololu.com
Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A.Block Sicher08-Jul-2022
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
1998691
one-csx.com
CSXT Intellectual Properties CorporationMary Leon / HjadUDRP07-Jul-2022
1 2022   On June 2 2022 DNC Holdings Inc confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the one-csx.com domain name the Domain Name is registered with DNC Holdings Inc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  DNC Holdings Inc has
1998469
morganstandleyclientserv.com
Morgan StanleyDomain AdministratorUDRP07-Jul-2022
in considering whether the passive holding of a domain name following a bad faith registration of it satisfies the requirements of paragraph 4 a iii the panel must give close attention to all the circumstances of the respondent's behavior and a
1997500
lordentaylor.com
Lord & Taylor IP LLCxiao hong wangUDRP07-Jul-2022
which consider so-called passive holding in bad faith which have little relevance.  The plain analysis based on the exhibited evidence is that the disputed domain name does or at least did direct Internet users to an online location which
104623
onlineintesa.net
onlineintesa.org
Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A.Gabriella Campora07-Jul-2022
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
104633
novartisplc.com
Novartis AGca domains07-Jul-2022
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
1998176
morganstanleyfutures.net
Morgan StanleyAnYaWeiUDRP05-Jul-2022
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
1998634
morgan-stanly.co
Morgan StanleyStone GabrielUDRP29-Jun-2022
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
104530
buyvaldoxan.com
BIOFARMAIgor Ustimenko28-Jun-2022
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
104607
boursorama-fr.click
BOURSORAMA SA1337 Services LLC28-Jun-2022
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
104599
hennessy24.biz
Jas Hennessy & CoIvan Karalenko28-Jun-2022
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
104505
hilfiger-philippines.com
hilfigeroutletusa.com
hilfigersouthafricas.com
[57 MORE]
Tommy Hilfiger Licensing B.V.Web Commerce Communications Limited28-Jun-2022
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
104617
bouyguesbelgium.buzz
BOUYGUESzetao jiang28-Jun-2022
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
104612
ikksin.xyz
ikksjob.xyz
ikksorder.xyz
[3 MORE]
IKKS GROUPcheap wasy28-Jun-2022
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
1997522
bitmexmining.com
HDR Global Trading LimitedBokiri MartinsUDRP24-Jun-2022
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
1996002
brasfieldsgorrie.us.com
Brasfield & Gorrie, L.L.C.Mariana BorgesCDRP24-Jun-2022
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
104548
buyvaldoxanonline.com
coralanpharmacyonline.com
BIOFARMAGoran Gichevski24-Jun-2022
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
1997884
commscopepartner.com
CommScope, Inc. of North CarolinaMarcio Montagnani / MG MusicUDRP23-Jun-2022
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
1997572
rushbet.com
Rush Street Interactive, LPChandika PadukkaUDRP23-Jun-2022
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
1996766
oofos-australia.com
oofos-canada.com
oofos-espana.com
[45 MORE]
OOFOS, INC.Client Care / Web Commerce Communications Limited / Domain Admin / Whoisprotection.ccUDRP23-Jun-2022
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
1993522
twitter-privacy.com
twitter-services.com
twitter-supported.com
Twitter, Inc.Dex Software / Murtaza Dalcı / Ömer Faruk KaçmazUDRP23-Jun-2022
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
104535
tucon.com
Andreas WillmannGarry Chernoff23-Jun-2022
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
104580
bricoferpro.online
bricoferpro.website
Bricofer Group S.p.A.Pedro Tempera23-Jun-2022
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
104589
ikks-back.com
ikksorder.com
ikkstask.com
IKKS GROUPgdfgd dfdff21-Jun-2022
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