faith under the doctrine of passive holding Factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant s mark ii the failure of the respondent to

WIPO Overview 3.0 considers passive holding and explains that 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

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

faith under the doctrine of passive holding Here the passive holding doctrine is amply supported by the high degree of distinctiveness and reputation of Complainant s trademark the failure of Respondent to submit a response or provide any

faith under the doctrine of passive holding It depends on the facts of the case and relevant factors include the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant s mark the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide

which 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 e.g WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Telstra Corporation Limited v

faith under the doctrine of passive holding see WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 In this regard the panel notes that the Complainant s SANDRO and SANDRO PARIS trademarks are widely known and readily associated with the Complainant and its

active web site i.e has been passively held As established in a number of prior cases the concept of bad faith use in paragraph 4 b of the Policy includes not only positive action but also passive holding especially in cases of domain name

s ARCALION drug The passive holding or non-use of a domain name is in appropriate circumstances evidence of a lack of rights or legitimate interests in the domain name see Red Bull GmbH v Credit du Léman SA Jean-Denis Deletraz WIPO Case

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 The Complainant underlines that the consensus view of WIPO

decisions have held that the passive holding of a domain name could support by clear and convincing evidence that a domain name is being used in bad faith.� However passive holding does not per se lead in a finding of bad faith use �See Central

The Panel notes that the passive holding of a domain name does not necessarily circumvent a finding that the domain name is being used in bad faith within the requirements of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy �See Telstra Corporation Limited v

faith under the doctrine of passive holding Factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant s mark ii the failure of the respondent to

of the Telstra doctrine of passive holding considers that Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name in bad faith For these reasons the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith 7

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 is registration and use

finding bad faith based upon passive holding of similar domain name The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith � DECISION Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy the

may be characterized as a passive holding of the domain name Respondent's failure to actively use the at-issue domain name indicates bad faith registration and use of the domain name pursuant to Policy � 4 a iii See Dermtek Pharmaceuticals Ltd

the Respondent including the passive holding of the Remaining Domain Names the use of false contact details and the failure by the Respondent to participate in this proceeding or otherwise provide any explanation of its conduct in registering 10

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 Corporative Limited v Nuclear Marshmallow WIPO Case

confusion The current passive holding of the disputed domain name is also evidence of bad faith from the Respondent Previous UDRP panels have found that the apparent lack of so-called active use of the domain name without any active attempt