on March 20 2019 and is passively holding the Disputed Domain Name 5 Parties Contentions A Complainant The Complainant cites amongst others its European Union trademark registration No 004030193 for the mark FERRING in various countries as

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

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

case on the doctrine of passive holding considering that the non-use of a domain would not prevent a finding of bad faith see WIPO UDRP Questions Third Edition section 3.3 The circumstances of the case may indeed be such that it is not

faith under the doctrine of passive holding and can refer to the WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmellows that the registration and passive holding of a domain name which has no other legitimate use and clearly

constitutes bad faith use as passive holding The Complainant argues that such passive use of the disputed domain name also reveals that the Respondent has no serious intent to use it for offering goods and services or promoting a noncommercial

has not filed a Response the passive holding is convincing evidence that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith Decision For all the reasons stated above the Complaint is Accepted and the disputed domain name s is

the trademark 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

which may be considered as a passive holding Under the passive holding doctrine 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

its competitors However the passive holding of a domain name can constitute bad faith registration and use especially when combined with other factors such as the respondent preventing a trademark or service mark holder from reflecting its mark

Google LLC and Google Ireland Holdings Unlimited Company v Host Master PrivActually Ltd Case No DEU2019-0010 1 The Parties The Complainant is Google LLC United States of America United States and Google Ireland Holdings Unlimited Company Ireland

faith under the doctrine of passive holding Accordingly Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to Complainant B Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings Under paragraph

because the Respondent by holding a domain name identical to the Complainant s trademark falsely suggests affiliation with the trademark owner the Respondent by passively holding the disputed domain name did not make a demonstrable use in

even in cases of so-called passive holding as found in the 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 bad faith

faith under the doctrine of passive holding In this regard the Panel takes into account i the high degree of distinctiveness of the Complainant s trademark ii the failure of the Respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual

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

of bad faith under the passive holding doctrine section 3.3 of WIPO Overview 3.0 and Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Given that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the Complainant s

name comprises or is close to passive holding the circumstances of the Respondent s registration and limited use support a finding of bad faith passive holding see section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 For these reasons the Panel finds that the

of domain names Respondent s passive holding of the solarturbines-energy.com domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use Respondent knew of Complainant s rights in the SOLAR TURBINES mark at the time of its registration of the domain

domain names and has been passively holding them Finally Respondent had actual and constructive knowledge of Complainant s rights in the FACEBOOK mark prior to registering the disputed domain names B Respondent Respondent failed to submit a