Complainant The non-use or passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith and with respect to automatically generated PPC links the Respondent cannot disclaim responsibility for content appearing on the

notes in this connection that passive holding of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith use under paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy Procedural Factors The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and

by the lack of active use passive holding of the disputed domain name B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4 a of the Policy sets forth the following three requirements

in and of itself establish passive holding One fundamental aspect in the consideration of whether the passive holding a domain name amounts to bad faith is the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant s mark WIPO Overview 3.0

in UDRP decisions that the passive holding of a domain name that incorporates a well-known trademark without a legitimate Internet purpose may indicate that the Disputed Domain Name is being used in bad faith under paragraph 4 a iii of the

circumstances under which the passive holding of a domain name will be considered to be in bad faith While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive

the Respondent s passive holding of the Domain Name amounts to use of the Domain Name in bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings A Identical or Confusingly Similar

panelists have held that passive holding of a domain name could amount to use in bad faith Factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the

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 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 include i the degree of distinctiveness

implausible Thus the current passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith see e.g Abbott Diabetes Care Inc v Privacy Protection Hosting Ukraaine LLC / �'италий Броцман Vitalii Brocman WIPO Case

also refers to the passive holding doctrine regarding domain names as set up in the Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 See WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to

domain name and that the passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith use in these circumstances Finally the Complainant seeks to have the disputed domain name transferred to itself B Respondent The Respondent did 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

circumstances under which the passive holding of a domain will be considered to be a bad faith use While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive

Finally with reference to the passive holding of the disputed domain name given the similarity of the disputed domain name to the Complainant s AXA and AXA REDEFINING / INSURANCE trademarks and in light of the Complainant s long-standing use of the

In the circumstances passive holding of the disputed domain name is further evidence of the Respondent s bad faith Moreover the Respondent has chosen not to respond to the Complainant s allegations In these circumstances and as found in

In the circumstances passive holding of the disputed domain name is further evidence of the Respondent s bad faith Moreover the Respondent has chosen not to respond to the Complainant s allegations In these circumstances and as found in

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

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