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

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

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

the disputed domain name Such passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent the Panel from finding registration and use in bad faith The Panel further notes that the undeveloped use of the website at the disputed domain name which

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 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

to bad faith use under the passive holding doctrine first set out in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and confirmed ever since Based on the overall circumstances of the present proceeding the Panel finds

of the Domain Names Moreover passive holding of a domain name does not rule out a finding of bad faith use B Respondent The Respondent sent informal communications to the Center on February 22 2022 and on February 24 2022 inquiring about the

faith under the doctrine of passive holding See section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 For all these reasons it appears to this Panel that the disputed domain name group-safran.com has been registered and is being used in bad faith The Panel

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

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

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

domain name is parked While passive holding is fact sensitive here there are no relevant facts on the face of it and the Respondent has not come forward to explain her reasons for registration and holding In such a case we are entitled to draw

in bad faith by inactively holding their resolving websites 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

Case No D2004-0186 that the passive holding of a domain name is insufficient to establish legitimate interests or bona fide use of a domain name The Respondent cannot therefore obtain or derive any rights or legitimate interest through a passive

faith under the doctrine of passive holding While panelists will look at the entirety 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

the disputed domain name passively � Respondent registered and uses the rrdonelleysonscompany.com domain name in bad faith Respondent holds the domain name passively Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the RR DONNELLEY

not lead to an active website Passive holding of a domain name cannot prevent a finding of bad faith under the so-called doctrine of passive holding In particular the following factors have already been considered relevant in applying the passive

to the Respondents iv the passive holding of the disputed domain names allbirdsindiain.com allbirdsshoessale.com and allbirdstrainers.com does not prevent a finding of bad faith v the use of the disputed domain names allbirdsoutletnz.com

name The Panel finds that passive holding may be evidence of bad faith use See section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 Furthermore the failure of the Respondent to answer the Complainant's Complaint and take any part in these proceedings also

AXA SA est la société holding du groupe AXA Employant 153 000 collaborateurs dans le monde le groupe AXA est un leader mondial de l'assurance de l'épargne et de la gestion d'actifs au service de 105 millions de clients Le groupe du

that this is a case of passive holding of a domain name as defined in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and in Sanofi-aventis v Gerard Scarretta WIPO Case No D2009-0229 given that i the Complainants

PANEL DECISION Vitol Holding B.V v Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Todd Peter Case No D2022-0322 1 The Parties The Complainant is Vitol Holding B.V Netherlands represented by NLO Shieldmark Netherlands The Respondent

faith under the doctrine of passive holding The disputed domain name is also confusingly similar to Complainant s domain name safran-group.com Registering a domain name that is very close to a known domain name is typosquatting and is based on

Respondent now appears to be passively holding Pursuant to paragraph 4 c of the Policy a respondent may establish rights or legitimate interests in a domain name by demonstrating any of the following i before any notice to it of the dispute the

Complainant s rights and the passive holding of the disputed domain name does not preclude a finding of bad faith B Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4 a of the Policy provides

which the panels found that passive holding under the totality of circumstances of the case can indeed constitute a bad faith use under the Policy In this regard the Complainant submits that when considering whether the passive holding of a

to address whether the passive holding of the disputed domain name could characterize the Respondent s bad faith The WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 indicates that ‘ w hile panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each

under the Policy that the passive holding of a disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under certain circumstances such as the nature and notoriety of a complainant s mark and the lack of any credible good faith explanation

interests in the Domain Name Passive holding of a confusingly similar domain name containing a third party mark with prior rights is evidence of registration and use in bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s

faith under the doctrine of passive holding Previous UDRP panels have held that the passive holding of a domain name that incorporates a well‑known trademark may amount to bad faith use of a disputed domain name in appropriate circumstances see

faith under the doctrine of passive holding See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Jupiters Limited v Aaron Hall WIPO Case No D2000-0574 In light of the above facts and reasons the Panel therefore

beautiful The Respondent s passive holding of this disputed domain name qualifies as use in bad faith in this case Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The Panel notes the reputation of the Complainant s

even in cases of so-called passive holding as found in the landmark UDRP decision Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000‑0003 In the circumstances of this case the Panel finds that such passive holding amounts to

and that notwithstanding its passive holding of the disputed domain name prior to the filing of the Complaint the evidence demonstrates that the Respondent targeted the Complainant and its Trade Mark in purchasing the disputed domain name The

faith under the doctrine of passive holding The Complainant states that there is no legitimate use that could be made of the disputed domain name and the Respondent never responded to the Complainant s cease-and-desist letter and to the reminder

faith under the doctrine of passive holding see section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 The factors that are typically considered when applying the passive holding doctrine include i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant s

and use under the passive holding doctrine as can be seen on Annex 05 to the Complaint the disputed domain name resolves to a website which is inactive As discussed in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No

name by its non-use/passive holding The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not commonly known by a disputed domain name because the Whois information is not similar to the disputed domain name The Complainant contends that the Respondent

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 email by the Respondent for which evidence was supplied by the Complainant The Panel

the Respondent s non-use or passive holding of the disputed domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith registration or use under the Policy Accordingly the Complainant has fulfilled the third condition of paragraph 4 a of the Policy 7

has demonstrated bad faith by passive holding of the disputed domain name Such a finding is consistent with previous UDRP decisions such as Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 See also WIPO Overview 3.0

faith under the doctrine of passive holding Section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 Having considered the reputation of the Complainant s mark CALVIN KLEIN and the failure of the Respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of bona