of the Respondent instead passively holding a domain name can constitute a factor in finding bad faith registration and use pursuant to the Policy The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant s trademarks and the Respondent has

the trade mark of another Passive holding of a domain name containing a mark with a reputation can be bad faith registration and use See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows D2000-0003 WIPO Feb 18 2000 � As such the Panel holds

faith under the doctrine of passive holding The Respondent in his email reply further proposed to transfer the disputed domain name to the Complainant but did not provide evidence or a reply substantively to the Complaint The Panel has reviewed

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

into consideration such passive holding of a domain name suggests that the Respondent acquired the Domain Name for the purpose of selling the Domain Name to the Complainant B Respondent On March 25 2020 the Respondent sent a short informal

According to the Panel the passive holding of the disputed domain name may amount to bad faith when it is difficult to imagine any plausible future active use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent that would be legitimate and not

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

faith under the doctrine of passive holding see WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 While panels will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include e.g

domain name passively.� In particular Complainant shows that browsing to the at-issue domain name returns an error message Respondent's passive holding of the at-issue domain name indicates neither a bona fide offering of goods or

domain name The Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name does not bar a finding that he registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6

Overview 3.0 also states that passive holding may be evidence of registration and use in bad faith depending on i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the Complainant s mark ii the failure of the Respondent to submit a response or to

faith under the doctrine of passive holding see WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 While UDRP panels will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine

found that inactive use or passive holding of the disputed domain name by a respondent permits the inference that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain names � Complainant provides screenshots of the disputed domain

� 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 bad faith within the requirements of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy �See Telstra Corporation Limited v

the disputed domain names is passive holding which constitutes bad faith use v The Complainant therefore requests that the ten disputed domain names be transferred to the Complainant B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s

that that the Respondent is holding the disputed domain name passively that there are no justifications for the use of its trademarks in the disputed domain name contends that such use does not confer any rights or legitimate interests in respect

by the Complainant nor the passive holding of the Domain Name would amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial nor fair use of the Domain Name The Respondent is also not commonly known by the Domain Name

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

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

available which constitutes passive holding Registration and passive holding of a domain name which has no other legitimate use and clearly refers to the Complainant's trademark may constitute registration and use in bad faith Complainant has