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 a screenshot of Respondent's use

asserts Respondent's inactive holding of the disputed domain names indicates it does not have rights or legitimate interests in the names Inactive holding of a domain name does not demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the name per Policy

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

that the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name does not constitute a noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name nor can be viewed as a bona fide offering of goods and services sufficient to establish rights or

use a domain name amounts to passive holding which constitutes bad faith registration and use citing inter alia the decision of the panel in Capital One Financial Corp v yang yang / yang FA1834866 Forum April 15 2019 concluding that Respondent's

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

used at all by Respondent passive holding As a general rule UDRP panels have found that the non-use of a domain name including a blank or coming soon page would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding see WIPO

DECISION Mubadala Trade Marks Holding Company LLC & Mubadala Investment Company PJSC v Domains by Proxy LLC / Not forsale and Patricia Concepcion Gonzalez Zamora Case No D2019-1598 1 The Parties The Complainant is Mubadala Trade Marks Holding

Complainant submits that the passive holding of the disputed domain name in circumstances that the Respondent was clearly well aware of the Complainant s business and mark and in view of its past history of cybersquatting in similar circumstances

circumstances under which the passive holding of a domain 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 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 Weiss WIPO Case No D2017-2145 The Panel agrees

panels have considered that passive holding of a disputed domain name can constitute use in bad faith and cited in support Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 In particular states the Complainant the

circumstances of inaction passive holding other than those identified in paragraphs 4 b i ii and iii can constitute a domain name being used in bad faith This question cannot be answered in the abstract the question can only be answered in

faith under the doctrine of passive holding citing Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 B Respondent The Respondent submits that none of the Complainant s registered TPG SIXTH STREET PARTNERS marks should be

is generally recognised that passive holding of a domain name does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith As stated in Dr Martens International Trading GmbH and Dr Maertens Marketing GmbH v Godaddy.com Inc WIPO Case No D2017-0246 t he panel

changed and that it is now passively held after the intervention of the former registrar Passive use does not preclude a finding of bad faith see Telstra Corporation Ltd v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 In this dispute the current

with this message constitutes passive holding which does not constitute a legitimate or a bona fide offering of goods or services under the Policy The Complainant finally submits that the Complainant s FACEBOOK trademark is highly distinctive and

Complainant the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name amounts to bad faith as the Complainant s trademark APM MONACO is a fanciful mark created by the Complainant which enjoys high degree of distinctiveness and reputation and

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Holding Le Duff HLD v Vasile Mitrea Case No D2019-2183 1 The Parties The Complainant is Holding Le Duff HLD France represented by SCAN Avocats France The Respondent is Vasile Mitrea Romania 2 The Domain Name and

name He has simply been passively holding it since registration It is parked with the Registrar and contains sponsored links and an offer for sale Passive holding does not constitute a legitimate non-commercial use see for example Euromarket