domain name The Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name without making legitimate noncommercial or fair use is clear evidence of bad faith The Complainant has not given the Respondent permission to use its CITCO mark in any manner

faith under the doctrine of passive holding WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions Third Edition WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 Here the Domain Name resolved to a page stating The Domain Name resolved to a page stating This

UDRP panels have held that 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 Here the totality of the circumstances in this case including

contact the trademark 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

Respondent registered and is passively holding the Domain Name which is a deliberate misspelling of Complainant s well-known mark Complainant notes that it has no affiliation with Respondent nor authorized Respondent to register or use a domain

in a phishing attempt The passive holding of the disputed domain name resolving to a parking site as well as the Respondent s effort to conceal its identity in the WhoIs record of the disputed domain name are further evidence of bad faith The

in circumstances of inaction passive holding this behavior falls within the concept of the domain name being used in bad faith In addition Complainant alleges that the trademark ASENDIA is not a generic or descriptive term in which Respondent

unlawful purposes The current passive holding of the disputed domain name is also evidence of bad faith from the Respondent in the circumstances of this case Further use of a privacy service in these circumstances supports a finding of bad faith

of the above use the current passive holding of the disputed domain name is also evidence of bad faith from the Respondent in the circumstances of this case All the points above lead to the conclusion by this Panel that the Respondent was fully

to the Complainants the passive holding of the disputed domain name by the Respondent is in bad faith because the Complainants LENNAR trademark is widely known and enjoys a strong reputation and there is no conceivable good faith use to which

for any purpose but rather is passively holding the disputed domain name The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith The Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant s trademark given

Complainant submits that a passive holding of the name cannot give rise to rights or legitimate interests Concerning the disputed domain name iwhatsapp.ir the Complainant submits that the Respondent s use of the name in a misleading manner as

active use of the domain name passive holding does not prevent a finding of bad faith under certain circumstances as decided inter alia in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 In the case at hand in view of i

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

by all appearances is 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

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

not reply at that time This passive holding of the confusingly similar disputed domain name interferes with the Complainant s business and is not a bona fide offering of goods or services B Respondent The Respondent did not make any formal reply

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

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

in which the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name with knowledge of the Complainant s trademark rights is evidence of both bad faith registration and use See in this regard Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows