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

leads to an inactive website Passive holding of a domain name does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services Philip Morris USA v Gabriel Hall WIPO Case No D2015-1779 L Oréal v Haya Manami WIPO Case No D2015-0924 Furthermore per

asserts that this amounts to passive use by the Respondent in bad faith The factors that UDRP panels have previously considered to amount to a passive holding in bad faith are set out at section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on

contact the trade mark 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

faith under the doctrine of passive holding The Complaint demonstrates that there is no other reason for the use and registration of the disputed domain name than to take advantage of the fame of the Complainant s trademarks with the intent to

of a given case including passive holding in making its bad faith analysis.  See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows Case No D2000-0003 WIPO Feb 18 2000 after considering all the circumstances of a given case it is possible that

use of a domain name called passive holding for an extended period as here constitutes neither a bona fide offering of goods or services by means of the domain name under Policy ¶ 4 c i nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of it under

domain names followed by a passive holding of the disputed domain names 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

only positive action but also passive holding especially in cases of domain name registrations corresponding to distinctive and/or well-known trademarks see i.a the landmark case Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No

faith under the doctrine of passive holding Under the circumstances of this particular case including the Complainant s trademark reputation the nature of the dispute domain name reflecting not only the Complainant s distinctive trademark but

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

and India The Respondent s passive holding is evidence of bad faith Bad faith is also supported by the fact that the disputed domain name is inexplicable other than as a reference to the joint venture between the Complainant and Mahindra media

name redirects to a blank holding page Previous panels as noted in the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions Third Edition WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 have found that a passive holding of a disputed domain name can

Likewise Respondent's current passive holding of the at-issue domain name in this manner shows neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4 c i nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4 c iii See Thermo

name to inactive use or passive holding does not change the outcome of our analysis because Respondent's continued holding of the domain name still prevents Complainant from reflecting the domain name in one of its own for the promotion of

faith under the doctrine of passive holding See WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 In the present case the Panel notes a the Complainant s LG mark is distinctive and well known b the Respondent has not provided any evidence of actual or contemplated

Panel notes the allegation of passive holding before the current use of the Domain Name but since the Domain Name has now been used for apparently competing services to the Complainant finds this allegation not to be material However the Panel does

faith under the doctrine of passive holding The Panel further notes that the Respondents chose to remain silent within these proceedings In addition the Respondents registered the disputed domain names through a privacy service which is not

faith under the doctrine of passive holding see WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 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

faith under the doctrine of passive holding WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 Some of the factors that UDRP panels have considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the