implausible Thus the current passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith see e.g Abbott Diabetes Care Inc v Privacy Protection Hosting Ukraaine LLC / �'италий Броцман Vitalii Brocman WIPO Case

of another The Respondent is passively holding the Domain Name containing the Complainant's mark with a reputation for legal services Passive holding of a domain name containing a mark with a reputation without legitimate excuse is bad faith

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

s present non-use or passive holding of the disputed domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy For all the foregoing reasons the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being

page This use constitutes a passive holding that can clearly be regarded as an indication of bad faith use The lack of use of the Disputed Domain Names in working corresponding websites and the Respondent s failure to reply to the Complainant s

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 website The passive holding of a domain name may amount to bad faith when it is difficult to imagine any plausible future active use of a domain name by the respondent that would be legitimate and would not interfere with the

circumstances of the case the passive holding of a domain name can indicate the use in bad faith paragraph 4 b recognizes that inaction e.g passive holding in relation to a domain name registration can in certain circumstances constitute a domain

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

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

plc Rational Intellectual Holdings Limited v Kevin Drotzur Case No D2022-0355 1 The Parties The Complainants are Flutter Entertainment plc and Rational Intellectual Holdings Limited Ireland represented by Demys Limited United Kingdom the

as it constitutes evidence of passive holding of the disputed domain name by the Respondent Additional circumstances in support of this finding include i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the Complainant s mark ii the failure of the

the ALLIED UNIVERSAL mark Passive holding of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith Respondent s non-use of the disputed domain name for an active website still indicates bad faith in the registration and holding of the disputed

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

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

that lack content or generic holding pages Respondent's passive holding of at-issue domain names constitutes neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy � 4 c i or iii See Guess IP Holder

faith under the doctrine of passive holding As stressed by many previous UDRP decisions While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding

use under the doctrine of passive holding see WIPO Overview section 3.3 In addition the Panel is aware of UDRP decisions such as Blackbaud Inc v Jenkins Alumona Sugarcane Internet Nigeria Limited WIPO Case No D2022-0104 which clearly suggest

falls within the doctrine of passive holding Indeed i the Complainant s trademark is intrinsically distinctive and enjoys a reputation ii the Respondent has failed to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated

decisions confirm 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 Panels have tended to make such findings in circumstances in

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 Dermtek Pharmaceuticals Ltd v

have any active content a passive holding of a domain name does not necessarily prevent a finding of bad faith Moreover in the present circumstances the Panel finds it implausible that the Domain Name could be put to any good faith use by 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

directly under the rubric of passive holding as first enunciated in the case of Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and followed in countless cases since.� The Panel finds bad faith use in line with the

well-established doctrine of passive holding B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings Even if the Respondent did not file a Response to the Complainant s contentions the Panel shall

the Disputed Domain Name The passive holding or non-use of domain names is in appropriate circumstances evidence of a lack of rights or legitimate interests in the domain names see Red Bull GmbH v Credit du Léman SA Jean-Denis Deletraz WIPO Case

faith under the doctrine of passive holding See section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 The Panel believes that the Respondent was or ought to have been aware of the fame of the Complainant s ONLYFANS trademark at the time of the registration of the

3.1.4 Third inactive or passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name by the Respondent does not prevent a finding of bad faith See Advance Magazine Publishers Inc and Les Publications Condé Nast S.A v ChinaVogue.com WIPO Case No D2005-0615

the Disputed Domain Name The passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name did not prevent previous Panels from making a finding that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith The Complainant requests the transfer of the Disputed

to use the Domain Name The passive holding of a domain name containing a well-known mark does not show a legitimate use or bona fide offering of goods and services There has been a notification that the site might be blocked for a security

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

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

in cases involving passive holding or non-use of a domain name include � 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

also contends that passive holding does not preclude a finding of bad faith thus the state of inactivity does not mean that the Disputed Domain Names are used in good faith Further the Respondents have not yet replied and simply

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

faith under the doctrine of passive holding Rather panellists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case including i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant s mark ii the failure of the respondent to submit

found 404 error Respondent's passive holding of the at-issue domain name shows neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy � 4 c ii nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy � 4 c iv See VICORP Rests Inc v Paradigm

names extends to its current passive holding of them both because we can conceive of no legitimate use to which Respondent might put them and because Respondent has exhibited untrustworthiness in using a multiplicity of identities with the evident

of this case the current passive holding of two of the disputed domain names does not prevent a finding of bad faith For the reasons above the Respondent s conduct has to be considered in this Panel s view as bad faith registration and use of

to its website ii even passive holding of the disputed domain name does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services At last the Complainant claims that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad

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

which the Respondent may be holding are not of significance unless these were to demonstrate that the Respondent is engaged in a pattern of conduct corresponding to paragraph 4 b ii of the Policy The Complainant has made no such allegation

disputed domain name is being passively held by the Respondent since it is not being used in relation to an active website The Complainant concludes that passive holding of the disputed domain name indicates the use in bad faith in accordance with

faith under the doctrine of passive holding Section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 further states While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding

notes in this connection that passive holding of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith use under paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy Procedural Factors The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and

faith under the doctrine of passive holding In view of the Panel the Respondent s lack of any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name the absence of any conceivable good faith use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent

faith under the doctrine of passive holding See section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 Moreover there is no evidence showing that Respondent has been commonly known by the Domain Name Additionally the Domain Name was listed for sell on a

possible that a r espondent's passive holding amounts to bad faith Telstra supra stating that the Policy recognizes that inaction e.g passive holding in relation to a domain name registration can in certain circumstances constitute a domain name

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 Finally the further circumstances surrounding the disputed domain name s

UDRP panels have held that passive holding of a domain name could amount to use in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy Factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include i the

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

the Respondent s passive holding of the Domain Name amounts to registration and use of the Domain Name in bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings A Identical or

finds that the Respondent s passive holding of the Domain Names supports the finding of bad faith As numerous UDRP panels have held passive holding under the totality of circumstances of the case can constitute a bad faith use under the Policy

relevant in 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

faith under the doctrine of passive holding See section 3.3 WIPO Overview 3.0 see Clerical Med Inv Group Ltd v Clericalmedical.com WIPO Case No D2000-1228 finding the mere holding of an infringing domain name without active use satisfies the bad

finds that the Respondent s passive holding of the Domain Name supports the finding of bad faith As numerous UDRP panels have held passive holding under the totality of circumstances of the case can constitute a bad faith use under the Policy See

can be treated as being passively held does not prevent a finding of bad faith registration and use Indeed a passive holding of a domain name can support a finding of bad faith UDRP panels must examine all the circumstances of the case

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 confirm the bad faith use of a disputed domain name see Telstra Corporation

in relation to the Passive Holding Doctrine that 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

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

use under the doctrine of passive holding The Respondent most likely registered the disputed domain name for the purpose of phishing as evidenced by the fact that one of the Complainant s customers has received a phishing e-mail from the

� 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

Complainant s rights and the passive holding of the disputed domain name does not preclude a finding of bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions On January 26 2022 February 2 and 7 2022 and on March 7

faith under the doctrine of passive holding and the former use to send phishing emails is evidence of bad faith too see sections 3.3 and 3.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 Additionally the Respondent hid its identity by using a privacy/proxy

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 relevant circumstances found to be indicative of bad faith

an active website and is thus passively held As also 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 see the landmark case Telstra

à une rétention inactive passive holding du nom de domaine litigieux En présence d autres circonstances pertinentes telles que i le degré de caractère distinctif des marques du Requérant ii l absence de réponse du Défendeur et iii l

isn't working Respondent's passive holding of the at-issue domain name shows neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy � 4 c i nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy � 4 c iii See Dell Inc v link growth /

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

to the INSTAGRAM Mark and is passively holding the Disputed Domain Name Complainant further asserts that Respondent is clearly engaged in cybersquatting in violation of the Policy and that the Disputed Domain Name should be transferred to

name that the Respondent's passive holding of the disputed domain name and the setting up of MX servers is evidence of bad faith RESPONDENT No administratively compliant Response has been filed Rights The Complainant has to the satisfaction of

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

choosing the Domain Name and holding it for later use or resale apart from a presumed intent ultimately to profit from the Domain Name s confusing similarity to a trademark On balance the Panel finds that the Respondent s conduct fits the pattern

name airtelfibre.com is passively held by the Respondent However this does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding see section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 As set out in the WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.1.4

the Panel finds that such passive holding amounts to bad faith Moreover since the MX records attached to the disputed domain name have been activated along with the nature of the disputed domain name being a typo-squatting version of the mark

to be the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain names does not preclude a finding of bad faith in the attendant circumstances of this case As set forth in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows supra the relevant

false contact information passively holding the disputed domain name and using a well-known trademark to divert web traffic B Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings The Panel finds that

faith under the doctrine of passive holding see also Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and Dr Martens International Trading GmbH and Dr Maertens Marketing GmbH v Godaddy.com Inc WIPO Case No D2017-0246 In

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

been long established that passive holding of the disputed domain name may be considered bad faith use in some cases In the present case each disputed domain name directs to an inactive page Factors that are relevant in applying the passive

panels and the doctrine of passive holding as allowing a finding of use in bad faith The Complainant also relies on the fact that the use of crack in the disputed domain name shows that it was likely created for illicit purposes such as the

mark the registration and passive holding of the disputed domain name by the Respondent who has no connection with the Complainant supports a finding of bad faith In addition MX servers were initially activated in relation with the disputed

webpage and is held passively by Respondent Previous UDRP panels have found bad faith in passive use where the Complainant has a well-known trademark and the Respondent provides evidence of good faith use As stated above the Respondent

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

faith under the doctrine of passive holding The Respondent has kept silent in the face of the Complainants allegations of bad faith Taking into account these circumstances the Panel finds that the Respondent must have known of the Complainants

not resolve to a website Such passive holding by the Respondents does not preclude the existence of rights or legitimate interests However the france domain differs from the Complainant s official domain name by only a hyphen and the Respondents

concludes that the present passive holding of the disputed domain names constitutes a bad faith use putting emphasis on the following the Complainant s trademark is distinctive and fanciful and used/registered globally the Respondent has failed

active website However such passive holding of the website does not prevent the Panel from finding registration and use in bad faith see section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 The Panel also notes that Respondent s previous use of the website at

regard the Panel finds that holding a domain name passively without making any use of it does not confer any rights or legitimate interests on the Respondent see earlier UDRP decisions such as Bollore SE v 赵竹飞 Zhao Zhu Fei WIPO Case No

domain name constitutes a passive holding in bad faith and/or has been used to promote the Registrar s services by creating a likelihood of confusion in accordance with paragraph 4 b iv of the Policy B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to

which 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 e.g WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Telstra Corporation Limited v

faith under the doctrine of passive holding In its determination the Panel considered the degree of distinctiveness and reputation of the Complainant s SUPERCELL and BRAWL STARS marks as well as the Respondent s failure to respond in the face of

this in conjunction with its passive holding of the disputed domain name and the use of a privacy service to try and mask its identity are factors that are further indicative of bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the

Complainant the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith when taking into account the distinctiveness or reputation of the Complainant s mark and the implausibility of any good faith use to

faith under the doctrine of passive holding Section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 states that relevant factors to finding bad faith in passive holding include i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant s mark ii the failure

an active website The current passive holding of the disputed domain name does not absolve the Respondent of bad faith registration and use and in fact under the circumstances of this case is further evidence of bad faith registration and use See

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

the trade mark of another Passive holding of a domain name containing a mark with a reputation in these circumstances can be bad faith registration and use See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows D2000-0003 WIPO Feb 18 2000 � As

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

faith under the doctrine of passive holding Section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 states that relevant factors to finding bad faith in passive holding include i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant s mark ii the failure