shows that Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name which resolves to an inactive webpage on which the following message appears 404 Error – Page Not Found Please check the URL Otherwise click here to be redirected to the

UDRP panels is that such passive holding does not prevent a finding of bad faith and a panel must look at the totality of the circumstances to determine whether a respondent is acting in bad faith Here circumstances include the well-known

faith under the doctrine of passive holding See section 3.3 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 very

faith In the circumstances passive holding of the disputed domain name is further evidence of the Respondent s bad faith For the above reasons the Panel finds that the condition of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy has been satisfied i.e 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 or

is not the position We have passive holding While inactivity is not objectionable in itself in all of the circumstances the registration of the Disputed Domain Name falls within the rule in Tesla Corp Ltd v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No

and that on the contrary passive holding evidences bad faith registration and use The Complainant finally asserts that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in order to use it in relation with a fraudulent address to perform scams

domain name it constitutes a passive holding in bad faith and in those circumstances the Respondent s refusal to voluntarily transfer the disputed domain name to the Complainant or to at least negotiate with the Complainant when given the

noncommercial or fair use   Passive holding of a domain name containing a sign confusingly similar to a famous mark disrupts the Complainant's business and is opportunistic registration and use in bad faith Typosquatting and causing confusion by

here that   I naction eg passive holding in relation to a domain name registration can in certain circumstances constitute a domain name being used in bad faith.       Given the circumstances already outlined above and considering also that it

as an inactive page Passive holding of a domain name does not prevent the finding of bad faith Moreover any contemplated active use of the disputed domain name would be illegitimate and would lead Internet users to confuse the disputed

of the disputed domain names Passive holding of a disputed domain name may constitute bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4 a iii See CommScope Inc of North Carolina v Zhuang Yan / WANGYONG FA 1764026 Forum Feb 14 2018 Respondent's

simply waiting all the while passively holding the name until the Complainant discovered that the Respondent owned the name contacted the Respondent and made a suitable offer to purchase it with the price the Respondent would ultimately accept

the Regulations The current passive holding of some of the disputed domain names does not prevent a finding of bad faith use e.g Jacuzzi Inc and Jacuzzi Europe S.p.A v Fonteyn WIPO Case No DNL2016-0036 As this finding already satisfies the

It is well established that passive use or non-use of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 See also Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case

is being used in good faith A passive holding does not preclude a finding of bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings A Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has

points to the Respondent s passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name and the Respondent s request for USD 150 000 for the Disputed Domain Name Passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name for a very short period of time does not in the

faith under the doctrine of passive holding 6.15 As shown the unauthorized registration of the Disputed Domain Name by the Respondent and its passive holding likely in the aim of a fraudulent use constitute bad faith registration and use 6.16 The

the disputed domain name Passive holding of a domain name does not constitute legitimate noncommercial use of it and in these circumstances shows the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith Finally the Complainant

bad faith The Respondent s passive holding of the Domain Name constitutes bad faith under the Policy because the Complainant s trademark is widely known the Respondent has attempted to conceal his or her true identity under the pseudonym BadBoi