Name in bad faith It is passively holding the Domain Name it used a privacy service to register the Domain Name and Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant s rights in the DELL mark prior to registering it B Respondent Respondent did

website This use constitutes passive holding so there is no serious intent to use it for offering goods and services or promoting a noncommercial cause B Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant �s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings

that the Respondent �s passive holding of the disputed domain name does preclude a finding of bad faith given the overall circumstances of the case particularly in light of the distinctiveness and renown of the Complainant �s FACEBOOK mark

as discussed above so the passive holding analysis is not apt in this context despite the absence of fully developed websites D2019 1833 self represented avatar based role play three dimensional in game co founder �CEO Founder MG Dot imvu e.com

classifies such use as passive holding of a domain name and emphasizes the lack of evidence that the Respondent has ever been known by or traded under the disputed domain name citcobankonline.com The Complainant alleges that the disputed

be or is claimed to be held passively without any evident usage or purpose � Cleveland Browns Football Company LLC v Andrea Denise Dinoia WIPO Case No D2011-0421 See also section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 Previous UDRP Panels have already

�s current 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 BMW v Weiss WIPO Case No D2017-2145 �The Panel agrees that the use of the

Furthermore this is a case of passive holding in bad faith There is no plausible good faith use to which the disputed domain name can be put in light of the Complainant �s trade mark and its extensive use of a similar domain name B Respondent The

uses the domain name as a passive page that displays only a website coming soon message Respondent registered and uses the dellltechnologies.com domain name in bad faith because Respondent intends to imply a connection with Complainant s mark

further asserts Respondent �s passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes use of the disputed domain name in bad faith Accordingly Complainant has requested that the disputed domain name be transferred to Complainant B Respondent

it is necessary to invoke the Passive Holding Doctrine developed since Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 B Respondent The Respondent says he is a domain name investor and owns over 15000 �.com � domain names

that the Respondent �s passive holding of the disputed domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith use of the disputed domain name The Complainant requests transfer of the disputed domain name B Respondent The Respondent did not

cases of so-called �passive holding � as found in the landmark 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 under the doctrine of passive holding Citing Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 the Complainant asserts that in the attendant circumstances no actual or contemplated good-faith use of the disputed

Registrar �s parking page The passive holding or non-use of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case factors that have been considered relevant in applying the

DECISION Majid Al Futtaim Holding L.L.C v Registration Private Domains By Proxy LLC / Ahlam sayegh Case No D2019-1891 1 The Parties The Complainant is Majid Al Futtaim Holding L.L.C United Arab Emirates represented by Talal Abu Ghazaleh Legal

Name is inactive and that the passive holding of the Domain Name amounts to bad faith The Complainant states that there is no use of the Domain Name by the Respondent without the consent of the Complainant that would not involve bad faith The

DECISION Miami International Holdings Inc v Dong Jin Kim Case No D2019-1338 1 The Parties The Complainant is Miami International Holdings Inc United States of America �United States � represented by Mayer Brown LLP United States The Respondent is

and under 4 a iii due to passive holding B Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding FINDINGS The Complainant is the owner of the mark F-16 registered inter alia in the United States for jet aircraft and ancillary

domain under the doctrine of passive holding Fourthly the Respondent indicates @mainservier.com as its email address on the WHOIS database The domain name mainservier.com has been subject to a previous UDRP Complaint which was settled after the