faith under the doctrine of passive holding WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 For example in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 the panel held that where a trademark had a strong reputation and was widely known

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

faith under the doctrine of passive holding Section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 states that relevant factors to finding bad faith in passive holding include i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant s mark ii the failure

in bad faith where there is passive holding and use of a widely known trademark where there is no response and no explanation as to why the use could be good faith see Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The

faith under the doctrine of passive holding Previous panels appointed under the Policy have held that the passive holding of a domain name that incorporates a well‑known trademark may confirm the bad faith use of a disputed domain name see

faith under the doctrine of passive holding See WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 The Panel finds so under the circumstances of this case The disputed domain name currently links to a webpage that promotes links to some pornographic websites for

after acquiring the name i.e passive holding is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4 c i or iii See Thermo Electron Corp v Xu FA 713851 Forum July 12 2006 finding that the

has argued the doctrine of passive holding the Panel understands that such can be applied to the case In regard to the doctrine of passive holding from the inception of the UDRP previous panels have found that the non-use of a domain name would

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

contends Respondent s passive holding of the domain name satisfies the requirement of paragraph 4 a iii that the domain name was being used in bad faith In Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 the Panel

currently not active but the passive holding of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith in order to take advantage of the reputation of the Complainant The trademarks NATIXIS are well known in France and in several other countries

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 has provided the Panel with screenshots

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

established by Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name and Respondent s use of a privacy shield to register the disputed domain name B Respondent Respondent rejects all of Complainant s contentions and maintains that there is no

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

Names have not been used Passive holding of domain names containing the trade mark of another can evidence registration and use in bad faith under the Policy See Indiana University v Ryan G Foo / PPA Media Services FA1411001588079 Forum Dec 28

submits that the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes use in bad faith It is well-established under paragraph 4 b of the Policy that inaction in relation to a domain name registration can constitute use in bad faith

contrary the Respondent is passively holding the Domain Names Particularly given the renown of the MONTAGE Marks in connection with the Services and the fact that the Respondent uses an actual and forthcoming Montage property location in the

open a hotel at Lake Conroe Passive holding is bad faith under the Policy   B Respondent   Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding   FINDINGS The Complainant is the owner of the mark MARGARITAVILLE registered inter alia in the

The Respondent s non-use or passive holding of the Domain Names is further evidence that it does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names See e.g Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v David Weiss Weiss Ent WIPO Case No D2017-2145