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

domain name and Respondent's passive holding of the domain name give rise to the inference that Respondent registered the domain name to take predatory advantage of Complainant's trademark rights This is bad faith FINDING OF ABUSE or MATERIAL

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

users for commercial gain Passive holding is bad faith per se � B Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding � FINDINGS The Complainant is the owner of inter alia the trade mark PAPA JOHN'S PIZZA registered in Canada

a finding Finally inactive or passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name by the Respondent may also 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

of this particular case the passive holding of the disputed domain name by the Respondent amounts to the Respondent acting in bad faith Relying on Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 the Panel concludes that

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 Thus Respondent has been passively holding the disputed domain name since 1998 After a domain name registrant has passively held a domain name for two years a presumption of bad faith registration and use arises � While passive holding of a

disputed domain names are passively held this passive holding does not prevent a finding of bad faith They should be considered to be registered and used in bad faith noting the composition of the disputed domain names being misspellings of the

from the Respondent and the passive holding of the disputed domain name the Panel finds in all the circumstances that the requisite element of bad faith has been made out The Panel considers it is inconceivable the Respondent was not aware of the

faith under the doctrine of passive holding In addition to this the Complainant has evidenced that the disputed domain name has been used to send emails that purported to be from the Complainant to at least one of the Complainant s customers in

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

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

Complainant argues that the passive holding of a webpage particularly where the webpage contains links to third party competitors constitutes evidence of bad faith registration For these reasons Complainant asserts that Respondent acted in bad

associated with Complainant Passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith use due to the cumulative circumstances of the case including Respondent s use of a privacy service B Respondent Respondent did not

s trademarks The Respondent s passive holding of the Domain Name satisfies the requirement of paragraph 4 a iii that the domain name is being used in bad faith as the Complainant s trademarks have a strong reputation there is no evidence of good

PANEL DECISION Chubb INA Holdings Inc v Privacy Administrator Anonymize Inc Case No D2020-1481 1 The Parties The Complainant is Chubb INA Holdings Inc United States of America United States represented by Fish & Richardson P.C United States

Respondents Furthermore the passive holding of one of the disputed domain names does not prevent a finding of bad faith registration and use in the circumstances of this case For the reasons above the Respondents conduct has to be considered in

name in bad faith through its passive holding of a domain name comprised of a distinctive mark As the WIPO Overview 3.0 explains in evaluating whether a respondent s passive holding constitutes bad faith registration and use panels have considered

de dominio en disputa o passive holding no impide considerar la existencia de mala fe cuando como en el caso que nos ocupa concurren circunstancias que apuntan a la misma Véase en este sentido la sección 3.3 de la Sinopsis elaborada por la