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 bad faith within the requirements of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy See Dermtek Pharmaceuticals Ltd v

have any active content a passive holding of a domain name does not necessarily prevent a finding of bad faith Moreover in the present circumstances the Panel finds it implausible that the Domain Name could be put to any good faith use by the

contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith Examples of what may be cumulative circumstances found to be indicative of bad faith include cases in which i the Complainant has a well-known trademark

directly under the rubric of passive holding as first enunciated in the case of Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and followed in countless cases since.� The Panel finds bad faith use in line with the

well-established doctrine of passive holding B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings Even if the Respondent did not file a Response to the Complainant s contentions the Panel shall

the Disputed Domain Name The passive holding or non-use of domain names is in appropriate circumstances evidence of a lack of rights or legitimate interests in the domain names see Red Bull GmbH v Credit du Léman SA Jean-Denis Deletraz WIPO Case

faith under the doctrine of passive holding See section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 The Panel believes that the Respondent was or ought to have been aware of the fame of the Complainant s ONLYFANS trademark at the time of the registration of the

3.1.4 Third inactive or passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name by the Respondent does not prevent a finding of bad faith See Advance Magazine Publishers Inc and Les Publications Condé Nast S.A v ChinaVogue.com WIPO Case No D2005-0615

the Disputed Domain Name The passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name did not prevent previous Panels from making a finding that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith The Complainant requests the transfer of the Disputed

to use the Domain Name The passive holding of a domain name containing a well-known mark does not show a legitimate use or bona fide offering of goods and services There has been a notification that the site might be blocked for a security

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

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

in cases involving passive holding or non-use of a domain name include � i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant's mark ii the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual

also contends that passive holding does not preclude a finding of bad faith thus the state of inactivity does not mean that the Disputed Domain Names are used in good faith Further the Respondents have not yet replied and simply

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 Rather panellists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case including i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant s mark ii the failure of the respondent to submit

found 404 error Respondent's passive holding of the at-issue domain name shows neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy � 4 c ii nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy � 4 c iv See VICORP Rests Inc v Paradigm

names extends to its current passive holding of them both because we can conceive of no legitimate use to which Respondent might put them and because Respondent has exhibited untrustworthiness in using a multiplicity of identities with the evident

of this case the current passive holding of two of the disputed domain names does not prevent a finding of bad faith For the reasons above the Respondent s conduct has to be considered in this Panel s view as bad faith registration and use of

to its website ii even passive holding of the disputed domain name does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services At last the Complainant claims that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad