resolve to blank pages Where passive holding is found non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith and a panel will look at the totality of circumstances in each case see WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 Telstra Corporation

name marketplace Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name since it was registered Respondent s use of a WhoIs privacy service to shield Respondent from identification in enforcement actions and a pattern of bad faith conduct

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

finds that the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name sodisro-e-leclerc.com also amounts to use of the disputed domain name in bad faith for the purpose of the Policy see section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 In the circumstances

s non-use and apparent passive holding of the disputed domain name does not preclude a finding of bad faith given the overall circumstances of the case particularly given the distinctiveness and renown of the Complainant s FACEBOOK mark The

It is well established that passive use or non-use of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 See also Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallow WIPO Case

adduced Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name This Panel finds that in the circumstances of this Complaint said passive holding is compelling evidence that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad

not actively used but merely passively held does not prevent a finding of bad faith use under the Policy as in the present case such a passive holding of the domain name is equal to active use There is consensus view among Panellists that the

faith under the doctrine of passive holding 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 relevant circumstances found to be indicative of bad faith

faith under the doctrine of passive holding specially taking into account the distinctiveness and reputation of the Complainant s mark The Respondent intends to take advantage of the good-faith and fame acquired by my client in recent years as

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 See section 3.3 of WIPO Overview 3.0 and Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case

this is a case of so-called passive holding On the contrary the disputed domain name undisputedly is resolving and apparently has been doing so for quite some time to the commercially active website www.alfawassermannus.com of the company Alfa

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 Marshmellows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The

contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith see Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and HUGO BOSS Trade Mark Management GmbH & Co KG HUGO BOSS AG v Dzianis

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

Complainant submits that the passive holding of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith see e.g Telstra Corporation Inc v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and that the Panel should take into account the distinctiveness of

Examiner 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 Telstra Corporation Limited v

the trade mark of another Passive holding of a domain name containing a mark with a reputation can be bad faith registration and use See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows D2000-0003 WIPO Feb 18 2000 The Respondent has used a

this particular Complaint the passive holding of the domain name by Respondent amounts to Respondent acting in bad faith In this connection the Panel notes that Paragraph 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 states While panelists will look at the totality

WIPO Overview 3.0 considers passive holding and explains that 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