previous UDRP decisions the passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name does not prevent a finding of bad faith either In this case the Disputed Domain Name contains the Complainant �s well-known trademark and diverts Internet traffic to a

name Here Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name Passive holding of a domain name does not preclude a finding of bad-faith use of a registration See WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 In such cases panels are to consider the

also to the doctrine of passive holding and the Telstra case Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 It also mentions the potential phishing scheme as mentioned above regarding the test of fair use Finally

s trademark also the passive holding of the Domain Name incorporating it amounts to bad faith Moreover the Panel finds that any use of the Domain Name would cause confusion with Complainant s mark as to the source sponsorship affiliation

of the Respondent �s alleged passive holding thereof The term �passive holding � as described in Telstra means circumstances of respondent inaction following the registration of a domain name The panel in that case indicated that such

names and is similar to passive holding One cannot exclude there being some form of non-public-facing use of the disputed domain names such as in connection with email addresses intended to mislead Internet users as being associated with

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

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

finds that the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes a disruption of the Complainant s business and qualifies as bad faith registration and use under the Policy Further inference of bad faith registration and use of

finds that the Respondent �s passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes a disruption of the Complainant �s business and qualifies as bad faith registration and use under the Policy Further inference of bad faith registration and use

website This type of passive holding does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use See Fontem Holdings 4 B.V v J B Limestar Inc WIPO Case No D2016-0344 Complainant has made its

website which constitutes passive holding of the disputed domain name The Complainant in support of the said contention have relied upon previous UDRP panels which have categorically ruled that even passive holding of a domain name

faith under the doctrine of passive holding see WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 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

and the Decision However passive holding of a domain name can in certain circumstances constitute a domain name being used in bad faith The Panel has considered whether in the circumstances of this particular Complaint the passive holding of

WIPO Overview 3.0 considers passive holding and explains that � w hile 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 a domain name to host a passively parked page does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding Under the particular circumstances of the present case considering the distinctiveness and fame of the Complainant �s

�s SANOFI trade mark The passive holding of a disputed domain name does not mean that there can be no finding of bad faith use of the disputed domain name B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant �s contentions 6 Discussion

registered and is now holding it in bad faith As has been determined in other UDRP cases the passive retention of the Domain Name with a view to its use or sale for an illegitimate purpose is a form of use of the Domain Name sufficient to

faith under the doctrine of passive holding While panels will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case factors that have been considered relevant include i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant s mark ii the

of the Complainants The passive holding by the Respondents of the fifth disputed domain name is also in bad faith see section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 In particular the Respondents have not submitted a response or provided any evidence of