Direct Limited and Smidir Holdings Ltd Case No DIE2019-0007 1 The Parties The Complainant is SmileDirectClub LLC United States of America United States represented by FRKelly Ireland The Registrants are Your Smile Direct Limited Ireland and

s website or location Passively holding a domain name cannot prevent a finding of bad faith See WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 This includes domain names that do not resolve to any website content as well as domain names that are parked with

m any panels have found that passive holding of a domain name can constitute bad faith use � Passive holding of the disputed domain name coupled with the fame of Complainant's mark evidences bad faith citing inter alia the landmark case of Telstra

use the disputed domain name passive holding is within the concept of bad faith use since there is no plausible reason for authorized future active usage B Respondent On October 23 2019 the Center received a communication from the individual

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

Universal Music Group Holdings Inc UMG Holdings submitted evidence that it is the registered owner of the following trademark registrations i U.S trademark registration No 5 165 973 for UMG in standard characters covering a wide range of

to any active website a passive holding which in the appropriate circumstances is indicative that no rights or legitimate interests vest in a domain name The Complainant also asserts that its Community trade mark BELFIUS has been registered

use under the doctrine of passive holding In particular 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

have to address Complainant s passive holding argument under the tenets of Telstra Corp Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 though it appears to have some merit under the circumstances here Complainant has established Policy

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 Corporative Limited v Nuclear Marshmallow WIPO Case

faith use under the Policy Passive holding may equate with active use of a domain name See e.g Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The Complainant s AGFA mark is well known and the Respondent has provided

and that the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name cannot create rights or legitimate interests According to the Complainant the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name has neither used nor made

Finally with reference to the passive holding of the disputed domain name given the similarity of the disputed domain name to the Complainant s widely known FB and WHATSAPP trademarks and in light of the Complainant s long standing use of the same

Complainant submits that the passive holding of that domain name shows the bad faith of the Respondent B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings Pursuant to article 2.1 of the Regulations

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

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

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

tenencia pasiva del mismo o passive holding tampoco puede ser considerada como acreditativa de ningún derecho o interés legítimo en el Demandado Todas estas circunstancias llevan al Experto a concluir que no se ha desvirtuado la acreditación

possible that a r espondent s passive holding amounts to bad faith The Telstra decision states that paragraph 4 b recognizes that inaction e.g passive holding in relation to a domain name registration can in certain circumstances constitute a

content can be interpreted as passive holding demonstrating that the Respondent has no serious intent of using the Disputed Domain Names for a legitimate offer of goods or for a legitimate non-commercial use This type of use must be seen as being