Recent Case Activity

Displaying results 501 - 600 of 8194 matches
20|50|100 results per page
Case Number Domain(s) Complainant Respondent Ruleset Status
D2021-3880
postnet.live
Postnet Internationalmanjo morias17-Jan-2022
in bad faith since also the passive holding or non-use of a domain name identical to a trademark can support a finding of bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings According to
D2021-4067
cintaspartnerconnect.net
Cintas CorporationPrivacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / MD Nasir Bin18-Jan-2022
interests in the Domain Name Passive holding of a confusingly similar domain name containing a third party mark with prior rights is registration and use in bad faith when considering factors such as the distinctive nature and reputation of the
D2021-3465
securingfacebook.com
Facebook, Inc.Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1245779249 / Sarah Evans, Devhops Ltd05-Jan-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
D2021-3696
ru-skyskanner.com
skyskanner.biz
Skyscanner LimitedIrina Ivanova13-Jan-2022
submits that the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain names constitutes use in bad faith especially since the Respondent has taken steps to mask its identity The Complainant seeks a decision that the disputed domain names be
D2021-3962
advancedfacebookads.com
Meta Platforms, Inc.Dont know13-Jan-2022
falls within the doctrine of passive holding Indeed all the relevant factors for applying the passive holding doctrine are met here i the Complainant s mark counts among the most well-known trademarks in the world ii the Respondent has failed to
D2021-3878
marllnk.com
Marlink S.A.Privacy Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / barry whyte14-Jan-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
D2021-3814
equifaxplus.com
Equifax Inc.Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot / babacan gunduz14-Jan-2022
active website but rather a passive website where it is offered for sale for USD 1.288 00 Previous UDRP panels have found that the non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding While
1977987
tdonlinebanks.com
The Toronto-Dominion BankDevine JustineUDRP18-Jan-2022
a blank page 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 Thermo Electron Corp v Xu
1977583
realogynetwork.com
Realogy Group LLCCharles Williams / BuyerMLSUDRP18-Jan-2022
office showing that Realogy Holdings Corporation was organized in Delaware that same year. The Complaint states that Complainant operates under the business name Realogy Holdings Corporation which is the ultimate parent company of Complainant.
D2021-3809
revitam.com
Autodesk, Inc.Chen Nan (陈男)17-Jan-2022
iv of the Policy The current passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith Therefore the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith The Complainant has
D2021-3795
t-f1.com
Télévision Française 1Withheld for Privacy Purposes, Privacy Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / rafael isuyama, The Fortune 113-Jan-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
104213
bouyguesuk.info
BOUYGUESBouygues UK - Michael Johnson18-Jan-2022
of the Telstra concept of passive holding of a domain name see WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Telstra Corporation v Nuclear Marshmallows Applying the Telstra criteria the Panel agrees in light of the evidence notes above that the mark is distinctive
1977869
tdameritradecopytrading.com
TD Ameritrade IP Company, Inc.TD AmeritradeUDRP17-Jan-2022
FA 572937 Forum Nov 18 2005 holding that the addition of both the word advisors and the gTLD com did not sufficiently alter the disputed domain name to negate a finding of confusing similarity under Policy 4 a i see also Bloomberg Finance L.P v
D2021-2751
swissre.xyz
Swiss Re LtdPrivacy Protection / Golliardo S.A.13-Jan-2022
faith under the doctrine of passive holding when circumstances exist such as the distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant s mark the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good
D2021-3101
swissreinsuranceinvestorsrelation.com
Swiss Re LtdDomain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org / Tobe Uche10-Jan-2022
faith under the doctrine of passive holding when circumstances exist such as the distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant s mark the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good
D2021-3579
lidl-de.website
LIDL Stiftung & Co. KGIgor I Gritsenko12-Jan-2022
faith under the doctrine of passive holding See WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 Rather the Panel finds that the change in use further suggests the lack of good-faith explanation as for the Respondent s initial use of the disputed domain name
D2021-3694
hellocanva.com
hoccanva.com
Canva Pty LtdVu Tuyen Hoang, Tuyen Hoang09-Jan-2022
disputed domain names beyond passively holding them The Respondent is not known nor has ever been known by the distinctive CANVA mark nor by the terms hellocanva or hoccanva As emphasized above the Respondent has no connection or affiliation with
D2021-3852
joinswisslife.com
Swiss Life AG Swiss Life Intellectual Property Management AGPrivacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / David Lanski13-Jan-2022
pursuant to the doctrine of passive holding the inactive status of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith See section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 For the reasons stated above the Panel finds that the disputed domain
DIR2021-0024
smiledirectclub.ir
Smiledirectclub, LLCrasool kuhestani, Rayan Dadeh Negar Dena Rayan Dadeh Negar Dena LLC31-Dec-2021
faith under the doctrine of passive holding See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and Section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 Therefore the Panel finds that the Complainant has also proven that the Respondent
D2021-3913
accenturehrservices.com
Accenture Global Services LimitedWhois Privacy Protection Service by onamae.com / xiansheng chen, chenxiansheng09-Jan-2022
circumstances under which the passive holding of a domain name will be considered to be a bad faith registration While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case factors that have been considered relevant in applying the
D2021-3649
jerragm.com
Jera Global Markets PTE LTD.Proxy Protection LLC / Hannah Townsend10-Jan-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
D2021-2610
virginmediao2.com
O2 Worldwide Limited Virgin Enterprises Limited VMED O2 UK LimitedBak J-seon22-Dec-2021
use under the doctrine of passive holding See WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 For the reasons given above the Panel finds that the third and final element has been sufficiently established 7 Decision For the foregoing reasons in accordance with
D2021-3746
sodexo-group-sa.com
Sodexofranck gauthier31-Dec-2021
foi La présente situation de passive holding correspond très exactement aux observations figurant à la Synthèse de l OMPI version 3.0 section 3.3 à savoir notoriété de la marque défaut du Défendeur se dispensant donc de répondre masquage
D2021-3642
iqosi.com
Philip Morris Products S.A.黄鳞10-Jan-2022
faith under the doctrine of passive holding See section 3.3 of WIPO Overview 3.0 Therefore on the balance of probabilities taking into consideration all cumulative circumstances of this case the Panel considers that the Disputed Domain Name was
D2021-3909
accelajob.com
Accela, Inc.Redacted for Privacy, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Alfred Uson11-Jan-2022
No D2015-0617 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
104207
intesaspaonline.com
Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A.Gabriella Campora13-Jan-2022
There is no active use 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
104231
arcelormittalvarilla.com
ARCELORMITTAL S.A.fernando sierra13-Jan-2022
Panels have held that the passive holding of a domain name can be considered as use in bad faith between many others Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and Cleveland Browns Football Company LLC v Andrea
1978472
lidl-de.online
Lidl Stiftung & Co. KGPrivacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehfURS12-Jan-2022
that Respondent’s passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use FINDING OF ABUSE or MATERIAL FALSEHOOD The Examiner may find that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that
1976677
allenbradleyplc.org
Rockwell AutomationMr. Rishabh Tejpal / E & A ENGINEERING SOLUTIONSUDRP12-Jan-2022
as its website address The passive holding of the disputed domain name redirecting Internet traffic to an inactive web page in these circumstances constitutes further and continuing bad faith use As this Panel has found that the disputed
1976673
cadillaccelestiq.com
cadillaclyriq.com
General Motors LLCJosh OliverUDRP12-Jan-2022
for commercial gain. He is holding the Domain Names passively preventing Complainant from reflecting its mark in a corresponding domain name and demands that Complainant purchase the Domain Names from him for an exorbitant amount of money
D2021-3313
mutecredit.biz
Confédération Nationale du Crédit MutuelAydin Genc31-Dec-2021
faith under the doctrine of passive holding See Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel v GARR Garderie Supra and Section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 Therefore the Panel finds that the Complainant has also proven that the Respondent
D2021-3762
cofraholdingag.info
Cofra AGPrivacy Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Joseph Leigh31-Dec-2021
Complainant asserts that the passive holding doctrine applies in the present proceeding as the Complainant s trademark has a strong reputation there is no evidence of any actual or contemplated good faith use by the Respondent of the disputed
104208
intesasanpaolo-service.com
Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A.federico amico12-Jan-2022
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
1976353
addepar.cc
Addepar, Inc.Ceng Hui KaiUDRP11-Jan-2022
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
1975093
oceanready.com
GXI, LLCHola Domains / Hola Dominios LimitadaUDRP11-Jan-2022
contends that both passive holding of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to the mark of another and offering such a domain name for sale have been cited frequently by UDRP panels as evidence that a respondent lacks
1975539
dasuquinmsm.com
Nutramax Laboratories, Inc.wen xue huUDRP11-Jan-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
D2021-3331
facebooklivesecurity.com
Facebook, Inc.Contact Privacy Inc., Customer 0159737540 / kadir ata, facebooklivesecurity28-Dec-2021
in UDRP decisions that the passive holding of a domain name that incorporates a registered trademark without a legitimate purpose may indicate that the disputed domain name is being used in bad faith Respondent s failure to use the disputed
D2021-3717
calvinsklein.com
Calvin Klein, INC Calvin Klein Trademark Trustjiakun Liu06-Jan-2022
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
104232
metanovartis.com
Novartis AGYoungseo Oh11-Jan-2022
parked page which constitutes passive holding which has no other legitimate use and constitutes registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith The Panel agrees that the passive holding of a domain name does not necessarily circumvent
1976620
wynnbet.site
Wynn Resorts Holdings, LLCthiago rodrigues / brasilUDRP10-Jan-2022
with the domain name and that passive holding of a domain name permits an inference of registration and use in bad faith see also Mondich v Brown D2000-0004 WIPO Feb 16 2000 holding that the respondent's failure to develop its website in a two
1976346
1629wynn.com
629wynn.com
wynn1629.com
[53 MORE]
Wynn Resorts Holdings, LLC国栋 喻UDRP10-Jan-2022
FORUM DECISION Wynn Resorts Holdings LLC v Claim Number FA2112001976346 PARTIES Complainant is Wynn Resorts Holdings LLC Complainant represented by Erin Lewis of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck Nevada USA. Respondent is Respondent Hong Kong
1972556
bitmexscam.com
HDR Global Trading Limitedxiankun caiUDRP10-Jan-2022
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
DNL2021-0058
lthodaalderop.nl
Itho Daalderop Group B.V.Rudnev Af28-Dec-2021
Overview 3.0 concerning the passive holding of a domain name the Panel s conclusion of bad faith also extends to the use of the Disputed Domain Name The Panel finds that the Respondent s conduct is a deliberate attempt to derive financial benefit
D2021-3129
luma.com
Luma Institute, LLCPerfect Privacy, LLC / James Redfern/Luma29-Dec-2021
bad faith in the form of passive holding and the misdirection of Internet users for commercial gain In its supplemental filing the Complainant argues that the Respondent may have thought the domain was his personal property and acted
D2021-3535
dfdslogin.page
DFDS A/SContact Privacy Inc. Customer 1249392938 / sfsd ds23-Dec-2021
of the Disputed Domain Name passive holding does not prevent a finding of bad faith By using the Disputed Domain Name passively and having no content on its web page the Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith See
D2021-3441
puma-colombia.com
Puma SEWeb Commerce Communications Limited28-Dec-2021
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
D2021-3416
salomon-indonesia.com
salomon-malaysia.com
salomon-singapore.com
[2 MORE]
Salomon S.A.S.Domain Admin, Whoisprotection.cc / Client Care, Web Commerce Communications Limited19-Dec-2021
case under the doctrine of passive holding See WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 Second as of the writing of the Decision when the Disputed Domain Names resolved to several inactive landing pages that stated that the landing pages were a dangerous
D2021-3803
petrabynight.co
petrabynight.com
petrabynight.net
[1 MORE]
Mohammad Harb Suleiman Al Farajatlaura leader, Discover Jordan04-Jan-2022
under the Policy as does the passive holding of the other three Domain Names The Complainant also argues for a finding of bad faith in the offering of two of the Domain Names for sale at auction with high minimum prices The Complainant contends
104098
starstable.live
starstable.shop
Star Stable Entertainment ABLucifer Hansson10-Jan-2022
domain names are being passively held as shown in screen captures of identical parking pages to which they each resolve annexed to the Complaint The Complainant submits that countless decisions of panels established under the Policy have
D2021-3823
joneslanglasale.com
Jones Lang LaSalle IP, Inc.Margaret Sessions05-Jan-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
1976933
morganstanleymeta.com
Morgan Stanleyxuzhong yiUDRP07-Jan-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
D2021-3592
rockerpay.org
rockerpayinfo.org
Bynk ABKingsley Stone, Keystone Inc.21-Dec-2021
faith under the doctrine of passive holding In this case the Panel considers that the following cumulative circumstances are indicative of passive holding in bad faith i the distinctiveness of the Complainant s mark ii the failure of the
D2021-3760
saint-gobain350jahre.com
Compagnie de Saint-GobainDomain ID Shield Service, Domain ID Shield Service CO., Limited / zhang yan sheng, GNAME. COM PTE. LTD.29-Jan-2022
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 cases of passive holding include i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant s mark ii the
D2021-3514
sodexo-ca.com
SodexoContact Privacy Inc. Customer 12411280262 / Richard Taylor31-Dec-2021
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
D2021-3714
metacam.site
Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH孙言虎 (Sun Yan Hu)27-Dec-2021
s present non-use or passive holding of the disputed domain name would 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
D2021-3611
group-alstom-es.com
ALSTOMjulian fernando fonseca04-Jan-2022
bad faith Finally inactive or passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name by the Respondent may amount to bad faith use See Advance Magazine Publishers Inc and Les Publications Condé Nast S.A v ChinaVogue.com WIPO Case No D2005-0615 Société pour
104219
beohringer-ingelhelm.com
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co.KGObrain Group06-Jan-2022
law 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
D2021-3484
cvsheailth.com
CVS Pharmacy, Inc.Domains By Proxy, LLC / Admin Admin28-Dec-2021
Complainant s trademarks the passive holding and the typosquatting As WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.1.4 states T he mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated
1975654
forerunnervc.com
Forerunner Ventures Management, LLCSusan Mayfield / Willis ManagementUDRP04-Jan-2022
rights in the mark See Lokai Holdings LLC v Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp FA 1763598 Forum Jan 22 2018 While Complainant does not specifically argue that it has common law trademark rights in FIND YOUR BALANCE the Panel finds Complainant's
DAU2021-0032
odaseva.com.au
Odaseva Technologies SAS LLCTaku Taneka, The Feature Enterprises Pty Ltd22-Dec-2021
or other online presence Such passive holding does not constitute a legitimate or fair use of the disputed domain name The Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name The disputed domain name was registered and is being used
DME2021-0017
carrefour-banque.me
Carrefour SAPrivate by Design, LLC/ Lisa Richol24-Dec-2021
faith under the doctrine of passive holding The factors usually considered material to such an assessment have been set out in a number of earlier decisions of UDRP panels According to section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 examples of
D2021-3033
iqsteelmittal.com
Arcelormittal (SA)Conn Ernst03-Dec-2021
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 non-dictionary trademark MITTAL as sufficiently distinctive so that any descriptive use of the
D2021-3366
rehaugroup.com
Rehau AG + Conanjing jinmai mugong jixie youxian gongsi20-Dec-2021
by the Respondent amounts to passive holding of the disputed domain name which it claims does not confer any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name Furthermore the Complainant claims that given the size of its
D2021-3321
gunkem.com
Günkem Gündüz Kimyevi Maddeler Ith.San. Ve Tic. A.Ş.黄裕 (huangyu)17-Dec-2021
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
D2021-3544
lycaproductions.com
Lyca Productions Private LimitedLouis Caous20-Dec-2021
use the Complainant cites the passive holding doctrine articulated in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Telstra The Complainant also argues that the Panel should infer bad faith from the Respondent s use of
D2021-3726
majidalfuttaim.xyz
Majid Al Futtaim Holding LlcRedacted for Privacy, Privacy Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Domain Man27-Dec-2021
DECISION Majid Al Futtaim Holding LLC v Privacy Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Domain Man Case No D2021-3726 1 The Parties The Complainant is Majid Al Futtaim Holding LLC United Arab Emirates represented by Talal Abu Ghazaleh
D2021-3656
gibson-guitars.club
Gibson Brands, Inc.Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot. / wills eldren27-Dec-2021
legitimate rights or interest Passive holding of a disputed domain name incorporating a third-party well-known mark does not normally amount to a bona fide use It is well established that inaction or passive holding can in certain circumstances
D2021-3619
liverpoolfc.football
The Liverpool Football Club and Athletics Grounds LimitedAmre Salim30-Dec-2021
use under the doctrine of passive holding See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 As the WIPO Overview 3.0 sets out at section 3.3 panels will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case but
1975630
suncastcomrnercialsales.com
Suncast CorporationSara HuotUDRP03-Jan-2022
error page Respondent's passive holding of the at-issue domain names indicates that the domain name promotes neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name per Policy 4 c i or
104212
metacam.world
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM VETMEDICA GmbHShuang Li03-Jan-2022
responded to this Complaint Passive holding of a domain name containing another s distinctive trade mark without explanation is likely bad faith registration and use The Panel also notes that the registrar s parking page to which the disputed
104214
arcelormmital.com
ARCELORMITTAL (SA)fadi lois03-Jan-2022
to an inactive page The passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith use MX servers are configured It suggests that the disputed domain name may be actively used for email purposes RESPONDENT The Respondent did not submit
1975598
bitmex-apr.top
HDR Global Trading LimitedA Si Di Fen Teng RenUDRP31-Dec-2021
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
1975795
jmorganstanley.com
jmorganstanleys.com
Morgan StanleyShoval Ben Mordehai / Michael PrytulaUDRP31-Dec-2021
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
D2021-3339
facebook-libra.net
Facebook Inc.苏洪文 (su hong wen)26-Dec-2021
faith under the doctrine of passive holding The Respondent has not denied the Complainant s allegations of bad faith Taking into account all the circumstances the Panel concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain
D2021-3216
grittypretty.com
Gritty Pretty PTY LTDNebojsa Vujinoviv14-Dec-2021
Complainant s rights and that passive holding can amount to bad faith use B Respondent The Respondent in an English language email to the Center stated that he would like to release the disputed domain name The Respondent did not reply to the
D2021-3574
facebookf2.com
Facebook Inc.罗小国 (luo xiao guo)26-Dec-2021
previous UDRP panels is that passive holding in itself does not preclude a finding of bad faith UDRP panels must examine all the circumstances of the case to determine whether a respondent is acting in bad faith See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel
D2021-3494
natixis-cp.com
NatixisLaura Molenaar23-Dec-2021
contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding see Sanofi Genzyme Corporation v Domain Privacy WIPO Case No D2016-1193 Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd v Whois Agent
D2021-3486
jandyinc.com
Zodiac Pool Systems LLC雷帅 (Lei Shuai)21-Dec-2021
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 on the Respondent see earlier UDRP decisions such as Bollore SE v 赵竹飞 Zhao Zhu Fei WIPO Case No
DAU2021-0031
datasite.com.au
Datasite LLCPreet Singh, AUD Stock Pty Ltd17-Dec-2021
faith registration and use by passive holding citing Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The Panel notes that in the Nuclear Marshmallows case Telstra was one of the largest if not the largest corporations in
104190
novarspharma.com
Novartis AGAditya Kumar30-Dec-2021
and that Respondent has been passively holding the disputed domain name Complainant concludes that Respondent has been using the disputed domain name in bad faith   NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED Rights Complainant has to
D2021-3157
r0omstogo.com
riomstogo.com
romostogo.com
[8 MORE]
Artemis Marketing Corp.杨智超 (Yang Zhi Chao a/k/a Zhichao Yang)18-Dec-2021
case under the doctrine of passive holding See section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 The Respondent has not filed any response to deny the Complainant s allegations of bad faith In view of the Panel s above finding that the Respondent lacks
D2021-3586
facebooksecurecheck.com
Facebook, Inc.Mehmet HarbalI22-Dec-2021
as to its registration and passive holding of the confusingly similar disputed domain name Taking all circumstances of this case into consideration the Panel concludes that in the present case the passive holding of the disputed domain name
D2021-3546
arkea.top
Crédit Mutuel Arkea欧志婷 (Zhi Ting Ou)20-Dec-2021
faith under the doctrine of passive holding See WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 At the time of this Decision the disputed domain name resolves to a website promoting the sale of various discounted Christmas gifts which the panel regards as further
D2021-3456
bvlgarinewbag.com
Bulgari S.p.A.shen xiao heng22-Dec-2021
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
D2021-3445
skyaviascanner.online
Skyscanner LimitedLeonid21-Dec-2021
that the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes a bad faith use B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4 a of the Policy provides that in
D2021-3751
carrefour-banque-fr.com
Carrefour SAPrivacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / ben sans, Oui22-Dec-2021
recognized that inaction i.e passive holding in relation to a domain name registration can in certain circumstances constitute use of a domain name in bad faith see WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 Taking into account all of the above it is not
D2021-3612
barcelona-fotomaton.com
fotomaton-barcelona-andorra.com
fotomaton-barcelona.com
Sr. Victor Arribas Pardo / Mejor Que Mejor, S.L.Manuel Parraga Montoya / Edward Wheel, EHIL26-Dec-2021
mala fe bajo la doctrina del passive holding Puede consultarse en este sentido la sección 3.3 de la Sinopsis elaborada por la OMPI 3.0 No obstante además en el presente caso los nombres de dominio en disputa no son objeto propiamente de falta de
1975375
pncfoundation.com
The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc.VMI INCUDRP28-Dec-2021
and contends that such passive use of the disputed domain name is further evidence Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in it See Mayo Found for Med Educ and Research v VMI Inc Case No FA1811001817602 Forum Dec 28 2018 Complaint
104153
novartispharmacie.com
Novartis AGBourse28-Dec-2021
website which constitutes passive holding In the WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmellows the Panel established that the registration and passive holding of a domain name which has no other legitimate use and
104163
grazia.net
Mondadori Media S.p.a.Grazia Visconti28-Dec-2021
factors when applying the passive holding doctrine the degree of distinctiveness and/or reputation of the Complainant s trademark the failure of the Respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good faith
D2021-3497
natixisbank.org
NatixisKenny Classic10-Dec-2021
resolve to an active website passive holding of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith A finding of bad faith use can be made inter alia where the respondent knew or should have known of the complainant s trademark rights and
D2021-3474
fxcmmalaysia.com
FXCM Global Services, LLCRegistration Private by Domains By Proxy, LLC/John Lay13-Dec-2021
shown from the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name Passive holding of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and Novo Nordisk A/S v
D2021-3473
bitpandatrade.com
Bitpanda GmbHALVIN VICIENT20-Dec-2021
the Respondent s passive holding of the Domain Name amounts to 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 Confusingly Similar
D2021-3464
facebookmailive.com
Facebook, Inc.Eduard Vokhmin21-Dec-2021
in UDRP decisions that the passive holding of a domain name that incorporates a registered trademark without a legitimate purpose may indicate that the domain name is being used in bad faith Respondent s failure to use the disputed domain name
D2021-3774
facebookcrpto.com
facebookcrptocurrency.com
facebookmining.com
Meta Platforms, Inc.Ibsam Shahzad20-Dec-2021
bad faith One such factor is passive holding described in section 3.4 of WIPO Overview 3.0 Complainant alleges that Respondent has violated paragraphs 4 b i and 4 b ii of the Policy and the additionally engaged in passive holding as indicators of
D2021-3277
arlanda.asia
arlanda.boston
arlanda.brussels
[8 MORE]
Swedavia ABJoshua Enbuske, Grodis Trading AB08-Dec-2021
faith under the doctrine of passive holding As has been addressed above the disputed domain names are identical to the Complainant s ARLANDA trademark registered in the domicile of the Respondent The term arlanda does not have a dictionary
D2021-3716
anniversairecarrefour40ansclientexclusif.com
carrefour-client-anniversaire-carte-pass-client-exclusif.com
carrefour-client-exclusif-40ans.com
[2 MORE]
Carrefour SA.Alzrt Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 12411110056, 12411024408, 12411022085, 12411041565, 12411058529 Solere16-Dec-2021
is a consensus view about passive holding 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 doctrine of passive
D2021-3629
creativedrives.careers
Sandbox Studio, LLCRedacted for privacy, Privacy Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Robert carpi14-Dec-2021
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
D2021-3805
all-accor-group.com
AccorPrivacy Protect, LLC (PrivacyProtect.org) / JORGE MARQUEZ20-Dec-2021
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
104154
mittalsteelgroup.com
ARCELORMITTAL S.A.qi bing Xue23-Dec-2021
registration and has been passively holding the disputed domain name The Complainant further asserts that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith as the Respondent should have known of the Complainant s MITTAL STEEL