el mismo La tenencia pasiva o passive holding del nombre de dominio en disputa no impide considerar que exista un uso del mismo de mala fe ya que implica una forma de uso al impedir el registro del mismo a favor del legítimo titular de la marca

websites and the current passive holding of the disputed domain names is also in bad faith In addition the Respondent s conduct constitutes a pattern of registering domain names to prevent the owner of a trade mark from reflecting the mark in

to a blank page 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

and interests Respondent passively holds the at-issue domain name Respondent's passive holding of the sollarturbines.com domain name shows Respondent's bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4 a iii See Regions Bank v Darla atkins FA

it intends to do so.  Such passive holding is evidence of the requisite bad faith See Christian Dior Couture v aris koulaidis Claim FA1546033 Further given that the TUPPERWARE mark is registered with the TMCH Respondent when it attempted to

website The Panel finds that passive holding of the disputed domain name in the circumstances of this case does not prevent a finding of bad faith use Moreover the Registrar of the disputed domain name provides that @hotmail.com is the Respondent

panels have recognized that passive holding can constitute bad faith use and registration The Domain Name effectively impersonates Complainant and an online tool reveals that while the Domain Name does not resolve to an active website email

asserts that the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain names 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

and given the Respondent s passive holding of the Domain Name The Complainant alleges that the Respondent s failure to otherwise use the website at the Domain Name for any legitimate purpose also constitutes bad faith B Respondent The Respondent

The Respondent s non-use or passive holding of the Domain Name is further evidence in the circumstances of this case that it does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the Domain Name See e.g Bayerische Motorken Werke AG v David Weiss

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

the Panel takes the view that passive holding of the disputed domain name does not preclude a finding of bad faith paragraph 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 nor does it detract from the Respondent s bad faith as it has been established in prior UDRP

the Panel takes the view that passive holding of the disputed domain name does not preclude a finding of bad faith paragraph 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 nor does it detract from the Respondent s bad faith as it has been established in prior UDRP

Finally with reference to the passive holding of the disputed domain name given the similarity of the three disputed domain names to the Complainants widely known FACEBOOK and INSTAGRAM trademarks and in light of the Complainants long standing use

has been filed and that passive holding of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith use under paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy of section 3.3 of WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel View on Selected UDRP Questions Third Edition WIPO

has considered inaction and passive holding as evidence of bad faith use 7 Decision For the foregoing reasons in accordance with paragraphs 4 i of the Policy and 15 of the Rules the Panel orders that the disputed domain name biomerjeux.com be

asserts that this amounts to passive use by the Respondent in bad faith The factors that panels have previously considered to amount to a passive holding in bad faith are set out at section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected

in bad faith where there is passive use of a widely known trade mark in a domain name and no response and or explanation as to why the use could be good faith B Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and

is used in bad faith due to passive holding and to the fact that the disputed domain name is being used as a blocking registration At last the Complainant draws the Panel s attention to the fact that the virus threat connected to the disputed

faith under the doctrine of passive holding The Complainant has cited previous decisions under the Policy as well as various sections of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions Third Edition WIPO Overview 3.0 that it