is active which constitutes passive holding Passive holding of the disputed domain name cannot be considered as a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name without intent for

is important to note that the passive holding of a domain name can still constitute bad faith registration and use Christian Dior Couture v aris koulaidis FA1546033 Forum April�1 �2014 passive holding adequate to establish bad faith under the URS

Rather Respondent is merely passively holding the disputed domain name Inactive or passive holding of a disputed domain name may not be a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy �� 4 c i or

resolve to a website the passive holding thereof in the opinion of the Complainant constitutes bad faith use since i the Complainant has registered the Trade Marks in many countries around the world ii the Complainant transacts an enormous

faith under the doctrine of passive holding See section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 Taking into account all cumulative circumstances of this case the Panel considers that the disputed domain name was very likely registered and used targeting the

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

the part of the Respondent � Passive holding of a Domain Name can constitute bad faith use and registration under the Policy � There is no good reason why the Respondent has registered the Domain Name and it must be intending to cause confusion on

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

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 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

It is well established that passive holding of a domain name can constitute bad faith when the overall circumstances point to this conclusion Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Those circumstances which

decisions confirmed that the passive holding of a domain name with knowledge that the domain name infringes another party s trademark rights is evidence of bad faith registration and use see in this regard Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear

faith under the doctrine of passive holding The Panel has reviewed all elements of this case and in particular the confusing similarity of the disputed domain name to the Complainant s trademarks the high degree of distinctiveness and fame of the

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

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 a screenshot of a could not

� Complainant submits that passive holding of a domain name does not qualify as a legitimate use or bona fide offering of goods or services See Teachers Ins and Annuity Ass'n of Am v Wreaks Commc'ns Group D2006-0483 WIPO June 15 2006 passive

in that case there can be passive use in bad faith where a trademark is well-known and there is no plausible reason and none given to find that a respondent needed to register a domain using that trademark.�� The Panel finds that this concept

faith under the doctrine of passive holding See WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 The Panel finds that the circumstances of this case give rise to such a finding here The Panel finds that the Complainant has also established the third element of

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

Telstra doctrine of bad faith passive holding Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 It argues in particular that the trade marks JACQUEMUS have a strong reputation that there is no evidence of any actual or