a finding of bad faith Passive holding of domain names can amount to use in bad faith in the presence of additional circumstances such as i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the Complainant trademark ii the failure of the

Panel considers the actual passive holding of the disputed domain name can prove that the Respondent acts in bad faith Therefore in view of all the circumstances of this case the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and

taken down the Respondent �s passive holding of the disputed domain name is also in bad faith see section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 In particular the Respondent has not submitted a response nor provided any evidence of actual or contemplated

UDRP Questions Third Edition passive holding as such does not prevent a finding of bad faith In the absence of any evidence to the contrary the Panel agrees with the Complainant that the disputed domain name absa.me was registered by the

faith under the doctrine of passive holding See WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 The present circumstances including the registration of five domain names containing the Trademark lack of a Response and use of a privacy service support a finding of

to an error web page Passive holding of a domain name can be an evidence of bad faith use See section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions Third Edition �WIPO Overview 3.0 � Thus i the fact that the

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

faith under the doctrine of passive holding see WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 While UDRP panels will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine

a finding of bad faith passive use here The panel agrees On the facts of this case it is difficult to conceive what good faith use the Respondent could make of the disputed domain name and even its passive holding of the disputed domain name

refers to the so-called passive holding doctrine and references some decisions in support The Panel notes that even where Complainant s argumentation is lacking according to previous WIPO UDRP decisions the Panel may nevertheless analyze the

�s trademark That a passive holding of the disputed domain name which cannot be used legitimately by anyone other than the trademark holder constitutes registration and use in bad faith as the disputed domain name is being used as a

�s trademark That a passive holding of the disputed domain name which cannot be used legitimately by anyone other than the trademark holder constitutes registration and use in bad faith as the disputed domain name is being used as a

its registration Nevertheless passive holding of the disputed 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

domain name for sale for 8888 Passive holding and making a general offer to sell a disputed domain name is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy Paragraph 4 c i or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy Paragraph 4 c

and used in bad faith passive holding does not prevent a finding of bad faith use of the disputed domain name 7 Decision For the foregoing reasons in accordance with paragraphs 6 i of the Policy and 15 of the Rules the Panel orders that the

it is worth pointing out that passive holding of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of �passive holding � While UDRP panels will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case factors that have been

�s SANOFI trade mark The passive holding of a disputed domain name can also support a finding of bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant �s contentions 6

faith under the doctrine of passive holding See e.g �Dr Martens � International Trading GmbH and �Dr Maertens � Marketing GmbH v Godaddy.com Inc WIPO Case No D2017-0246 In the instant proceeding the disputed domain name merely redirects to

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

alter this conclusion since passive holding of a domain name containing a famous trademark especially in conjunction with the privacy service can still constitute bad faith There is no suggestion that the Respondent had any intention of