FORUM DECISION � HY IP Holding Company LLC v Nathan Sassover / INVESTEON LLC Claim Number FA2005001896267 � PARTIES Complainant is HY IP Holding Company LLC Complainant represented by Susan J Kohlmann of Jenner & Block New York USA.�

faith under the doctrine of passive holding 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 relevant circumstances found to be indicative of bad faith

could be assimilated as a passive holding Such use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith use as it reveals that the Respondent has no serious intent to use it for offering goods and services or promoting a noncommercial cause UDRP

faith under the doctrine of passive holding see section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview iv the Respondent masked his identity behind a privacy protection service and probably provided non-accurate contact information in the WhoIs record of the disputed

Complainant also asserts that passive holding or non-use of the disputed domain main would not prevent a finding of bad faith RESPONDENT The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions Rights The Complainant has to the satisfaction of

3.0 have maintained that passive holding of a domain name can constitute bad faith use Specifically passive holding constitutes bad faith use when combined with activities present in this case namely the composition of this disputed domain

faith under the doctrine of passive holding 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 relevant circumstances found to be indicative of bad faith

been used but the Panel finds passive holding in bad faith in line with the reasoning in the case of Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and having regard to the evidence of long term use of the trademark put

submits that by its passive holding the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith v The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the

states that the Respondent passively holds the disputed domain name Previous Panels have recognized that passive holding of a domain name can in certain circumstances constitute use in bad faith see in particular Telstra Corporation Limited v

in bad faith � Respondent's passive holding of the disputed domain name does not amount to bad faith in the circumstances of the present case in fact the disputed domain name was registered in 2016 and the betxon.com domain name at the end of

faith under the doctrine of passive holding The Panel has reviewed all elements of this case and in particular the confusing similarity of the disputed domain names to the Complainant s trademarks the high degree of distinctiveness and fame of

disputed domain name is being passively held by the Respondent and argues that the apparent lack of so-called active use of the disputed domain name without any active attempt to sell or to contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as

of this case the mere passive holding of the Disputed Domain Names reflecting the Complainant s well-known mark constitutes bad faith See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows supra The Panel also takes notice of the fact that

of this case under the passive holding doctrine See WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 Accordingly the Panel concludes that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith pursuant to the Policy paragraph 4 a iii D

Policy Even if the for sale holding page could be viewed as a passive holding of the disputed domain name that would not prevent a finding of bad faith use Section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 states that relevant factors to finding bad faith in

Rules having regard to the passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name and the prior use and fame of the Complainant s trademarks B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings Under

nasdaq-ipo.com domain name Passive holding of a disputed domain name may be evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy � 4 a iii See VideoLink Inc v Xantech Corporation FA1503001608735 Forum May 12 2015 Failure to actively use a

affecting its business The passive holding of the disputed domain name clearly infringes the Complainant s rights Further the Respondent has tried to hide his identity to avoid any claim which supports the allegation of bad faith The Complainant

inter alia support finding of passive holding as constituting bad faith registration and use See Telstra Corporation Limited v Neclear Marshmallows D2000-0003 WIPO Feb 18 2000 the particular circumstances which lead to the conclusion that