faith under the doctrine of passive holding The factors that panels have considered relevant in determining if a passive holding of a domain name amounts to use in bad faith include the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant

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 Using a privacy service is also indicative

faith under the doctrine of passive holding It depends on the facts of the case and relevant factors include the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant �s mark the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide

this particular Complaint the passive holding of the disputed domain name by the Respondent amounts to the Respondent acting in bad faith Relying on Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 the Panel concludes that

Panel is of the view that the passive holding of the disputed domain name will not prevent a finding of bad faith Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 In the instant case the following circumstances are further

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

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

the Respondent �s passive holding of the Domain Name amounts to use of the Domain Name in bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant �s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings A Identical or Confusingly Similar

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

Complainant submits that such passive holding of the disputed domain name does not preclude a finding of bad faith given the overall circumstances of the case notably given the Complainant s distinctiveness and renown worldwide and the Respondent s

or for any other purpose Passively holding a domain name does not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use within the meaning of Policy Paragraph Paragraph 4 c i or iii Michelin North

finding that inactive use or passive holding of a disputed domain name by a UDRP respondent permits the inference that respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain names The Panel therefore finds that Complainant has satisfied

faith under the doctrine of passive holding UDRP panels rather 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

also submits that the passive holding of the disputed domain name amounts to use in bad faith and notes that the disputed domain name can still be used to create email addresses or to impersonate the Complainant �s identity in order to trap

this dispute as one of passive holding see WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Telstra v Nuclear Marshmallows Procedural Factors The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be

generally recognised that the passive holding of a domain name does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith See section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 In this case the Panel finds that the passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name by the

relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant �s mark ii the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated

relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant s mark ii the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use

UDRP panels have stated that passive holding of a domain name does not shield a respondent from a finding of bad faith See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions Third Edition section 3.3 which states � f rom the inception of

trade mark the Respondent �s passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name combined with the fact that the Respondent incorporated the Complainant �s well-known AGFA mark into the Disputed Domain Name supports the fact that the Respondent is acting