contends that Respondent s passive holding of the dellemc.us domain name is also evidence of bad faith Making no use of a domain name beyond having a parked page maybe evidence of bad faith per Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See Alitalia Linee Aeree

or services and further that passive holding of a domain name does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services Prada S.A v Y.B el Bakkali WIPO Case No DNL2012-0074 Mar 27 2013 The Disputed Domain does not resolve to any active webpage

UDRP Questions Third Edition passive holding as such does not prevent a finding of bad faith From the information provided in the concerned WhoIs database the Respondent has been offering the disputed domain name for sale since the registration

under the Policy where passive or inactive holding of a domain name was considered as being used in bad faith In this frame the Complainant insists upon the fact that its ACCENTURE trademark is distinctive and well known so that it is

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

that the Respondent �s passive holding of the disputed domain name does not preclude a finding of bad faith and urges that the Respondent use of a privacy protection service in the circumstances of this case is further indication of the

not used by the Respondent passive holding The Complainant also notes that the disputed domain name was registered 18 years after the Complainant began using its ACCENTURE mark Finally the Complainant explains that the Respondent had

In the circumstances passive holding of the disputed domain name is further evidence of the Respondent �s bad faith For the above reasons the Panel finds that the condition of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy has been satisfied i.e the

in bad faith because he is holding them passively without offering any goods or services Also bad faith is demonstrated by Respondent s registration of domain names that contain a well-known trademark Respondent s registration of the Domain

in bad faith because he is holding them passively without offering any goods or services Also bad faith is demonstrated by Respondent s registration of domain names that contain a well-known trademark Respondent s registration of the Domain

a HTTP 302 error notice Such passive holding has also been found to not support any rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name See Am Home Prods Corp v Malgioglio D2000-1602 WIPO Feb 19 2001 finding no rights or legitimate interests

Fifthly in addition to the passive holding feature mentioned above the Complainant refers to the possibility that the Disputed Domain Name was registered for and intended to be used for emailing purposes as can be verified by the fact that email

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 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

or legitimate interests Passive holding is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a non-commercial legitimate or fair use The Respondent has registered a number of domain names including the trademarks of third parties including

registration provided that passively holding a domain name can constitute a factor in finding bad faith registration and use and that the disputed domain name thus can only be taken as intending to cause confusion among Internet users as to the

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

correctly asserted that the passive holding of a domain name may in appropriate circumstances be aan indicative of bad faith It will be so indicative when all the circumstances of the Respondent behaviour indicates he or she is acting in bad

refers to the case as one of passive holding relying upon the well-known early decision under the Policy in WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Telstra v Nuclear Marshmallows The Panel can apply the structure deployed in the Telstra decision and subsequently

PANEL DECISION Knead Holding S.A.L v Domains by Proxy LLC / Jamil Fares Case No D2019-0996 1 The Parties The Complainant is Knead Holding S.A.L Lebanon represented by Buckingham Doolittle & Burroughs LLC United States of America �United