to an inactive website Passive holding has been considered by UDRP panels to constitute bad faith Such conduct falls squarely within the meaning of paragraph 4 b iv of the Policy and accordingly the Panel finds that the Complainant has

domain name followed by a passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes ‘use in bad faith.'  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

however is that Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name and this Panel finds that such passive holding amounts to use of the disputed domain name in circumstances where the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant's

faith under the doctrine of passive holding The Respondent is using a privacy shield Although use of a privacy or proxy registration service is not in itself an indication of bad faith the manner in which such service is used can in certain

of the approach to passive holding which is found in decisions under the Policy It states that there are no relevant rights or legitimate interests and asks for the disputed domain name to be transferred to itself Rights The Complainant

his own commercial gain The passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name registered in such circumstances is also use in bad faith under the Policy see e.g Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Therefore taking

name Due to the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name none of those circumstances correspond neatly to this case However many prior UDRP panels have found that passive holding of a disputed domain name can constitute bad faith

under the Policy that a passive holding of a disputed domain name is not per se sufficient to avoid a finding of use of that domain name in bad faith In the circumstances of the present case the Panel considers that any use of the disputed

website In any case the passive holding of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith because it was registered to take advantage of the reputation of Complainant and to harm Complainant s business and projects Respondent s use of

its registration and that the passive holding is further inference of bad faith Fourthly the Respondent has not responded to nor denied any of the assertions made by the Complainant in this proceeding Decision For all the reasons stated above the

More recently Respondent's passive holding of the disputed domain name also signals its bad faith Finally Respondent must have had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the PORNHUB mark at the time it registered the disputed domain name  

of the disputed domain name Passive holding of a disputed domain name can support a finding of bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4 a iii See VideoLink Inc v Xantech Corporation FA1503001608735 Forum May 12 2015 Failure to actively use a

use under the doctrine of passive holding As WIPO Overview 3.0 stipulates 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

which is an indication of passive holding The circumstances of this case including the reputation of the Complainant s trademark and implausibility of any good faith use of the disputed domain name support a finding that the passive holding of

the disputed domain name is passive holding which entails a deliberate and probably fraudulent attempt to misappropriate a certain amount of the Complainant s assets and constitutes bad faith use iv The Complainant requests that the disputed

that they are being used Passive holding of a domain name can also constitute a factor in finding bad faith registration and use See Telstra Corp v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 In this case the disputed domain names are

faith under the doctrine of passive holding The same section adds 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

by reason of the principle of passive holding first enunciated in the case of Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows  WIPO Case No D2000-0003.  The Panel finds that the reasoning set out in that case applies with equal force here  

such use may be considered a passive holding of a domain name which is also not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4 c i or iii See George Weston Bakeries Inc v McBroom FA 933276 Forum

to make an active use and is passively holding the disputed domain name As noted previously Complainant provides screenshots of the disputed domain name which resolves to an inactive website The Panel agrees that the passive holding of a domain