use under the doctrine of passive holding The Respondent most likely registered the disputed domain name for the purpose of phishing as evidenced by the fact that one of the Complainant s customers has received a phishing e-mail from the

  The Panel agrees that the passive holding of a domain name does not necessarily circumvent a finding that the domain name is being used in bad faith within the requirements of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy.  See Telstra Corporation Limited v

Complainant s rights and the passive holding of the disputed domain name does not preclude a finding of bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions On January 26 2022 February 2 and 7 2022 and on March 7

faith under the doctrine of passive holding and the former use to send phishing emails is evidence of bad faith too see sections 3.3 and 3.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 Additionally the Respondent hid its identity by using a privacy/proxy

faith under the doctrine of passive holding The Panel must examine all the circumstances of the case to determine whether the Respondent is acting in bad faith Examples of what may be relevant circumstances found to be indicative of bad faith

an active website and is thus passively held As also established in a number of prior cases the concept of bad faith use in paragraph 4 b of the Policy includes not only positive action but also passive holding see the landmark case Telstra

à une rétention inactive passive holding du nom de domaine litigieux En présence d autres circonstances pertinentes telles que i le degré de caractère distinctif des marques du Requérant ii l absence de réponse du Défendeur et iii l

isn't working Respondent's passive holding of the at-issue domain name shows neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4 c i nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4 c iii See Dell Inc v link growth /

The Panel agrees that the passive holding of a domain name does not necessarily circumvent a finding that the domain name is being used in bad faith within the requirements of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy.  See Telstra Corporation Limited v

to the INSTAGRAM Mark and is passively holding the Disputed Domain Name Complainant further asserts that Respondent is clearly engaged in cybersquatting in violation of the Policy and that the Disputed Domain Name should be transferred to

name that the Respondent's passive holding of the disputed domain name and the setting up of MX servers is evidence of bad faith RESPONDENT No administratively compliant Response has been filed Rights The Complainant has to the satisfaction of

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

choosing the Domain Name and holding it for later use or resale apart from a presumed intent ultimately to profit from the Domain Name s confusing similarity to a trademark On balance the Panel finds that the Respondent s conduct fits the pattern

name airtelfibre.com is passively held by the Respondent However this does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding see section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 As set out in the WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.1.4

the Panel finds that such passive holding amounts to bad faith Moreover since the MX records attached to the disputed domain name have been activated along with the nature of the disputed domain name being a typo-squatting version of the mark

to be the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain names does not preclude a finding of bad faith in the attendant circumstances of this case As set forth in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows supra the relevant

false contact information passively holding the disputed domain name and using a well-known trademark to divert web traffic B Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings The Panel finds that

faith under the doctrine of passive holding see also Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and Dr Martens International Trading GmbH and Dr Maertens Marketing GmbH v Godaddy.com Inc WIPO Case No D2017-0246 In

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

been long established that passive holding of the disputed domain name may be considered bad faith use in some cases In the present case each disputed domain name directs to an inactive page Factors that are relevant in applying the passive