that Respondent s inactive holding of the disputed domain names indicates that it does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the name Many prior UDRP decisions have held that inactive holding of a domain name does not demonstrate rights

in bad faith as Respondent passively holds the disputed domain name Passive holding of a disputed domain name can indicate bad faith per Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See VideoLink Inc v Xantech Corporation FA1503001608735 Forum May 12 2015 Failure

name is currently being passively held by the Respondent cannot constitute bona fide use nor can it confer any rights or legitimate interests in this domain name It has been established by previous UDRP panels that passive holding does not as

resolve to blank pages 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

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

the trademark of another Passive holding of a domain name containing a well-known mark can be bad faith registration and use See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows D2000-0003 WIPO Feb 18 2000 As such the Panel holds that the

this case the Respondent �s passive holding of the disputed domain name supports a finding of bad faith The Complainant has been unable to obtain specific evidence that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with the Complainant �s

faith under the doctrine of passive holding Consequently the Complainant requested the transfer of the disputed domain names RESPONDENT No administratively compliant Response has been filed Rights The Complainant has to the satisfaction of the

faith under the doctrine of passive holding According to section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 � w hile panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive

20 Furthermore Respondent s passive holding of the dokapotheke-ups.info medapotheke-ups.info 24apotheke-ups.info ohnerezept-ups.info sichervital-ups.info apothekepillen-ups.info pillenapotheke-ups.info apotheke-ups.info apotheke-ups.club

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

concludes that the present passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith use putting emphasis on the following the Complainant �s trademarks are well known worldwide with strong reputation the Respondent has failed to present

that the Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name since its registration which constitutes bad faith use It therefore relies on the case Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The

by previous UDRP panels that passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith See e.g �Dr Martens � International Trading GmbH and �Dr Maertens � Marketing GmbH v Godaddy.com Inc WIPO Case No D2017-0246 Finally the Respondent �s use

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

Name that is an example of passive holding Passive holding is not itself evidence of either good or bad faith but must be considered in the context of all of the circumstances of the case see Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows

faith under the doctrine of passive holding see section 3.3 of WIPO Overview 3.0 and Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 considers passive holding and explains that While

Domain Name has not been used Passive holding of a Domain Name containing a trademark and holding a Domain Name containing a mark with a reputation for no good reason is registration and use in bad faith B Respondent Respondent failed to submit a

GBG International Holding Company Limited See Compl Annex A Respondent provides in Annex 8 to its Response a declaration by the Associate General Counsel to its parent holding company Global Brands Group Holding Limited The declarant

the disputed domain name but passive holding of the disputed domain name cannot preclude a finding of bad faith given the overall circumstances of the case Also the Respondent �s failure to respond to the Complainant �s cease and desist letter is