that the registration and passive holding of domain names particularly where they embody well-known trademarks qualifies as use in bad faith under the Policy The disputed domain names are not ordinary descriptive terms themselves but strongly

even in cases of so-called passive holding as found in the landmark UDRP decision Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 In the circumstances of this case the Panel finds that such passive holding amounts to

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

domain name constitutes a passive holding in bad faith The fact that the Respondent tried to sell the disputed domain name failed to do so and then abandoned it thereby preventing the Complainant from using it for its own website amounts to use

registration and use The passive or inactive holding of a domain name that incorporates a registered trademark without a legitimate Internet purpose may indicate that the domain name is being used in bad faith under the Policy Complainant s

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 Here Complainant provides screenshots of the disputed

Panel finds that the current passive holding of the disputed domain name by the Respondent constitutes bad faith The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name Noting the use of the disputed domain name provided

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

website which constitutes passive holding of the Domain Name According to Complainant passive holding under the appropriate circumstances falls within the concept of the Domain Name being used in bad faith Complainant also asserts that the lack

that the registration and passive holding of domain names particularly where they embody well-known trademarks qualifies as use in bad faith under the Policy The disputed domain names are not ordinary descriptive terms themselves but strongly

the Respondent s apparent passive holding of the disputed domain name does not preclude a finding of bad faith registration and use in the context of this case citing Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003

cites the long-standing passive holding doctrine articulated in Telstra Corp Ltd v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 concluding that maintaining a domain name based on a well-known mark combined with other indicia of bad faith may

an active use of and is thus passively holding the coupanq.com domain name Depending upon all the circumstances of a given case failure to make an active use of a domain name can evidence bad faith by passive holding under Policy � 4 a iii See

faith under the doctrine of passive holding In this regard the Panel takes into account i the high degree of distinctiveness and reputation of the Complainant s trademark ii the failure of the Respondent to submit a response or to provide any

contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith 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 cumulative

argues that the Respondent s passive holding of the Domain Name the Domain Name does not resolve to an active webpage does not give rise to any possible legitimate interests of the Respondent in the circumstances of this case The Complainant

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

website which constitutes passive holding of the Domain Name According to Complainant passive holding under the appropriate circumstances falls within the concept of the Domain Name being used in bad faith Complainant also asserts that the lack

use as Respondent is merely passively holding the disputed domain name Furthermore Respondent is attempting to sell the disputed domain name in excess of out-of-pocket costs 5.��� Respondent registered and uses the employeefax.com domain name in

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 Here Complainant argues that the disputed domain name