faith under the doctrine of passive holding See section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 In the present circumstances considering the distinctiveness and reputation of the VIVENDI trademarks the failure of Respondent to submit a response or to

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

domain name constitutes passive holding by Respondent of the disputed domain name which demonstrates bad faith use Citing Telstra v Nuclear Marshmallows D2000-0003 WIPO Feb 18 2000 finding that the respondent's passive holding of a domain

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

use under the doctrine of passive holding The CANVA Mark is distinctive attained a strong reputation and was widely known at the time of registration of this domain name Furthermore the disputed domain names are clearly targeted towards the

that the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith Lastly the Complainant indicates that he opted not to reply to the Respondent s email communication to avoid any involvement in the

No D2021-2353 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 supports a finding of bad faith registration and use See

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

use and action taken the passive holding as is done now of the disputed domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith The Panel finds that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith 7 Decision For

faith under the doctrine of passive holding see for example Ladbrokes Betting & Gaming Limited v mehdi bouksila WIPO Case No D2021-3381 The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith 7

contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding see e.g CCA and B LLC v Domain Administrator Fundacion Privacy Services LTD WIPO Case No D2021-1531 The Panel must

to any active site So-called passive holding according to the Complainant indicates bad faith Nor is ENEL a common or descriptive term rather it is obviously a trademark in and to which the Complainant has demonstrable rights and what is more it

businesses including ARRIS Holdings�S.a.r.l ARRIS Global Holdings Inc and ARRIS Group Europe Holding BV � The Domain Name registered in 2022 is confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark containing it in its entirety and adding only the word

faith under the doctrine of passive holding See section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 Lastly in the present circumstances including the distinctiveness and reputation of the UKAS trademarks the failure of Respondent to submit a response or to

active use of a domain name passive holding does not in appropriate circumstances prevent a finding of bad faith See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions Third Edition section 3.3 Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear

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

in view of 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

3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 passive holding of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith For the reasons set out above the Panel finds that paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy is satisfied 8 Decision For the foregoing reasons in

service unavailable This passive holding of the disputed domain names by the Respondent can be also considered as a use in bad faith considering the circumstances hereafter See section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 the Complainant s has

that the Respondent s present passive holding of the disputed domain name does not confer rights or legitimate interests The condition in paragraph 4 a ii of the Policy is therefore satisfied also with respect to this use of the disputed domain

use of it The Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name and the latter is on a blacklist for prior use in relation to spam malware or other bad conduct Lastly the Complainant states that the disputed domain name has been registered

D2004-0935 in Sharman License Holdings Limited v Mario Dolzer 31 January 2006 CAC Case No 101592 in Fujitsu Ltd v Thomas Ruben 18 July 2017 WIPO Case No D2018-2450 in Alibaba Group Holding Limited v Huang Guofeng 26 December 2018 WIPO Case No

decisions have held that the passive holding of a domain name could support by clear and convincing evidence that a domain name is being used in bad faith.� However passive holding does not per se lead in a finding of bad faith use.� See Central

well-established doctrine of passive holding B Respondent 1 The Respondent is a Korean Company which has been working as a global purchasing agent since 20 years ago It represents and buys specific goods or products for its global clients

of bad faith use Applying the passive holding doctrine as summarized in section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 the Panel assesses the Complainant s INSTAGRAM trademark as sufficiently distinctive and even well-known including in Turkey where the

Respondent by registering a passive holding of the disputed domain name would in the absence of any evidence of the Respondent s use or demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with any offering of goods or services

misleading use and the now passive holding of the disputed domain name as well as the intention to sell it indicates that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name Furthermore the disputed domain name does

the established doctrine of passive holding The Panel concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith and therefore finds that the requirements of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy is satisfied

held that either inactive or passive holding of a domain name or offering to sell it for an excessive price may indicate bad faith See e.g Licensing IP International S.�.r.l v Pawel Marcelak FA 1980007 Forum Feb 9 2022 Respondent currently holds

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

Complainant argues that the passive holding of the disputed domain name does not confer any rights or legitimate interests citing to Dr Martens International Trading GmbH and Dr Maertens Marketing GmbH v.GoDaddy.com Inc WIPO Case No D2017-0246

domain names However such passive holding of the disputed domain names does not prevent a finding of registration and use in bad faith see section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 In light of the clear presence of typo squatting which the

name in bad faith and by its passive holding is also using it in bad faith iv The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6

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

concludes that the present passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes a bad faith use putting emphasis on the following the Complainant s trademark OSRAM is famous with a high distinctiveness and is well-known globally the

the registration and passive holding of the disputed domain name by Respondent who has no connection with Complainant supports a finding of bad faith under the Policy For the foregoing reasons the Panel finds that Respondent registered and

3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 passive holding of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith For the reasons set out above the Panel finds that paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy is satisfied 7 Decision For the foregoing reasons 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 or

faith under the doctrine of passive holding The bad faith registration combined with the clear reference to the Complainant's core business the failure to submit a response and the lack of plausibility for a bona fide use lead to the conclusion

the Disputed Domain Name i.e passive holding of domain names See Park Place Entertainment Corporation v Bowno WIPO Case No D2001-1410 and FMV Opinions Inc v the Fair Market Valuation experts WIPO Case No D2002-0372 From all circumstances present

through Respondent's current passive holding of the domain name Respondent acted with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the PORNHUB mark � B Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding � FINDINGS Complainant has

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

hence 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

site The Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name does not preclude a finding of bad faith WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 Among the relevant factors in this analysis are i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the

faith under the doctrine of passive holding given that the Complainant s mark is well-known there is no dictionary meaning of the Domain Name that the Respondent might in good faith have sought to adopt and a simple Internet search would have

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

UDRP panels have found that passive holding of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith See WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 The Respondent notes that the Complainant did not register the disputed domain name first However the Panel

faith under the doctrine of passive holding In terms of factors considered by panels in applying the doctrine of passive holding it says that the Complainant s LPL and LPL FINANCIAL trade marks are well known internationally and as a result of

the Respondent appears to be passively holding the disputed domain name and submits that any such passive holding by the Respondent does not constitute a legitimate noncommercial or other fair use of the disputed domain name The Complainant

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 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

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 submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated

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

mark the registration and passive holding of the disputed domain name by the Respondent who has no connection with Complainant supports a finding of bad faith under the Policy Moreover the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the

Domain Name is inactive 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

regard the Panel finds that holding a domain name passively without making any use of it does not confer any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name on the Respondent see earlier UDRP decisions such as Bollore SE v 赵竹飞

regard the Panel finds that holding a domain name passively without making any use of it also does not confer any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names on the Respondent see earlier UDRP decisions such as Bollore SE v

on the basis of so-called passive holding as first described in Telstra�Corporation Limited�v Nuclear�Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003.� The Panel finds passive holding since it considers that case to be directly applicable to the

domain name constitutes a passive holding in bad faith as explained section 3.3 of WIPO Overview 3.0 based on the following cumulative circumstances i the distinctiveness of the Complainant s mark ii the failure of the Respondent to provide any

Domain Name is inactive 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

disputed domain name and the passive holding of the disputed domain name satisfy the bad faith requirement of paragraph 4 a iii Further inference of bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name is given by the fact that the

making any use and is only passively holding the disputed domain name c the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith given the following factors 1 as the term credit mutuel is not a common term and is a

faith under the doctrine of passive holding In addition in a similar case involving the same Complainant it was held that the registration of the Domain Name which contains obvious misspelling of the Complainant s BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM trademark

in many UDRP cases that passive holding under the appropriate circumstances falls within the concept of the domain name being used in bad faith The lack of use of the disputed domain name particularly close to those used by the Complainant is

faith under the doctrine of passive holding Further the domain has also been used to configure email servers and thus could possibly be engaged in a phishing scheme For the above reasons the third part of the paragraph 4 a of the Policy is

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

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 A

content Respondent's passive holding of the at-issue domain name thus 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

s commercial gain 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 supports a finding of bad faith registration and use See

is currently inactive such passive holding of the disputed domain name by Respondent amounts to use in bad faith The Panel notes that the domain name currently directs toward the hosting provider s default page which can be considered as

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

of bad faith use Applying the passive holding doctrine as summarized in section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 the Panel assesses the Complainant s trademark BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM as sufficiently distinctive so that any good-faith use of the

to an inactive website the passive holding behavior falls within the concept of the domain name being used in bad faith as it has been established in many UDRP cases Finally the Complainant submits that the Respondent has neither prior rights

the Respondent s non-use or passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy see WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 For all the foregoing reasons the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name has

to an inactive web site.� Passive holding of a domain name is also evidence of bad faith.� Given the non-exclusive nature of Policy � 4 b failure to make active use of a confusingly similar domain name is also evidence of bad faith �Caravan

faith under the doctrine of passive holding SeeTelstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The Panel notes the following factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine i the

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

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 doctrine of so-called passive holding In accordance with section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 the relevant factors that should be taken into account when assessing the existence of bad faith in the passive holding of a domain name are the

Internet users and that the passive holding constitutes bad faith use that damages the reputation of the Complainant s brand Moreover the Complainant contends that the use of the disputed domain name to host an inactive or parked website does not

name in addition to the passive holding of the domain name reveal that Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith see also AutoZone Parts Inc v Ken Belden FA 1815011 Forum Dec 24 2018 Complainant contends that Respondent's

faith under the doctrine of passive holding WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 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

in determining whether holding disputed domain names amounts to a passive holding in bad faith or not as set out at section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions The factors that have been considered

use despite the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name From the inception of the UDRP panelists have found that the non-use of a domain name including a blank or coming soon page would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the

disputed domain names and the passive holding of the disputed domain names satisfy the bad faith requirement of paragraph 4 a iii Further inference of bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain names is given by the fact that the

faith under the doctrine of passive holding See section 3.3 of WIPO Overview 3.0 Considering that previous panels have found the Complainant s trademark to be well known the Respondent has not provided any evidence of actual or contemplated

content 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 concludes that holding a domain name passively without making any use of it does not confer any rights or legitimate interests on the Respondent Furthermore the nature of the disputed domain name being almost identical to both the

the Panel concludes that holding a domain name passively without making any use of it does not confer any rights or legitimate interests on the Respondent Furthermore the nature of the disputed domain name being almost identical to both the

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 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

site The Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain names does not preclude a finding of bad faith WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 The Panel determines that the requisite bad faith element is present here Reviewing the case record in

faith under the doctrine of passive holding See section 3.3 WIPO Overview 3.0 This circumstance in fact corroborates the Respondent s bad faith Accordingly the Panel concludes that the Complainant has met its burden of establishing that the

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

by the Respondent and its passive holding are presumably for commercial gain and fraudulent purposes As a consequence the Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the

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

faith under the doctrine of passive holding Given the fame of the Petitioner s TOMMY BAHAMA mark and the other circumstances set forth herein the Domain Holder s actions are in bad faith C The Domain Holder has no rights or justified interest in

resolve to an active website passive holding being considered as bad faith use according to the Policy Furthermore the Complainant raises that the Respondent used a privacy service to conceal its identity In addition the Complainant notes that MX

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

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