is currently engaging in passive holding of the Domain Name in an effort to ransom it for an unreasonable sum to Complainant Complainant argues that there are four factors the Panel may use to determine Respondent �s bad faith when applying

faith under the doctrine of passive holding Indeed in the present case all the conditions for a finding of passive holding are met see WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 the disputed domain name includes a very well-known trademark the Respondent has

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

faith under the doctrine of passive holding It depends on the facts of the case and the failure of the Respondent to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use is a relevant factor Typosquatting amounts to paradigm bad faith

a disputed domain name as a passive holding may not be a bona fide offering or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use See Kohler Co v xi long chen FA 1737910 Forum Aug 4 2017 Respondent has not made a bona fide offering of goods or services or a

registered with Media Elite Holdings Limited and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names Media Elite Holdings Limited has verified that Respondent is bound by the Media Elite Holdings Limited registration agreement and has thereby

provides Finally the passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name evidence the registration and use in bad faith as the Disputed Domain Name is being used as a blocking registration preventing the Complainant from using the domain name for

bad faith 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

domain name in bad faith passive holding is within the concept of bad faith usage B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant �s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 4 a of the Policy the Complainant

the Respondent is making a passive holding of the disputed domain name As noted at section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions Third Edition factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive

an analysis for bad faith and passive holding of a confusingly similar domain name has often been held to demonstrate bad faith under Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See VideoLink Inc v Xantech Corporation FA1503001608735 Forum May 12 2015 Failure to

which essentially equates to passive holding It is generally recognised that the passive holding of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith use see section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 � ii the Respondent used a privacy service to

faith under the doctrine of passive holding � Having regard to all elements of the case at hand and in particular to the fact that the only distinctive element in the disputed domain name is the Complainant �s trademark the fame of the

as such 3 the Respondent �s passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes registration and use in bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant �s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings A Identical or Confusingly

Name With respect to the use passive holding does not prevent a finding of bad faith use Furthermore past UDRP Panels have held that failure to respond to a cease-and-desist letter and to the Complaint may be considered a factor in finding bad

The Panel adds that any passive holding of the disputed domain name and website does not prevent the Panel from finding registration and use in bad faith Decision For all the reasons stated above the Complaint is Accepted and the disputed

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

Overview 3.0 paragraph 3.1.1 Passive parking of domain name The Disputed Domain Name is currently parked In WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmellows the Panel decided that registration and passive holding of a

certain circumstances the passive holding of a domain name cannot prevent a finding of bad faith Factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the

a finding of bad faith But passive holding can only support a finding of bad faith in circumstances where it is reasonable to find that a respondent must have been aware of the complainant �s mark and registered the domain name in order to take