panelists have held that passive holding of a domain name could amount to use in bad faith Factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the

name erbgroups.com is being passively held by the Respondent cannot constitute bona fide use nor can it confer any rights or legitimate interests in this domain name It has been established by previous UDRP panels that passive holding does not as

each case when applying the passive holding doctrine Accordingly the Panel concludes there is no credible evidence to establish bad faith on the part of the Respondent and the Complainant has failed to establish that the third condition of

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

is effectively engaged in passive holding of the disputed domain name within the terms originally established by Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The panel in Telstra noted that the question as to which

with the Complainant and passively holding the Domain Name for no legitimate purpose Passive Holding In Advance Magazine Publishers Inc and Les Publications Conde Nast S.A v ChinaVogue.com WIPO Case No D2005-0615 the panel referring to Telstra

4 b iv of the Policy Passive holding can also be bad faith under Paragraph 4 b iii of the Policy The Domain Name was acquired less than a month after the Complainant applied to register multiple ROCKET formative marks on the International

the Domain Name but is simply passively holding it and there is no evidence in the record that Respondent has ever made an active use of it since December of 2015 when it was created See Complaint Exhibit B for date of creation Passive holding of a

domain name Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name Respondent registered and is using the capitaloonebank.com domain name in bad faith as it is passively holding the disputed domain name B Respondent Respondent failed to

website and non-use or passive holding According to the WIPO Case No D2003-0455 Croatia Airlines d.d v Modern Empire Internet Ltd a Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate

Complainant submits that a passive holding of those names does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests particularly in circumstances where the names are connected with and used for purposes competitive with the Complainant ™s trademarks

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

used in bad faith because the passive holding of domain names and also the reservation of domain names including well-known trademarks constitute use in bad faith B Respondent The Respondent has not submitted a response However on September 19 and

panels have opined that a passive holding of a disputed domain name can still satisfy the third requirement of bad faith stipulated in paragraph 4 a of the Policy and that in such cases the panel must consider all the circumstances of the

faith under the doctrine of passive holding WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 Factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant ™s mark ii the

domain name amounts to a passive holding of the same and that this is a further inference of bad faith use in the circumstances of the case Finally the Respondent never replied to the Complainant ™s claims brought in this proceeding Indeed

PANEL DECISION Tetra Laval Holdings & Finance S.A v Kilt Kully Huy Case No D2019-0802 1 The Parties The Complainant is Tetra Laval Holdings & Finance S.A Switzerland represented by Valea AB Sweden The Respondent is Kilt Kully Huy United States

possible that a r espondent s passive holding amounts to bad faith The Telstra decision states that paragraph 4 b recognizes that inaction e.g passive holding in relation to a domain name registration can in certain circumstances constitute a

the trade mark of another Passive holding of a domain name containing a mark with a reputation can be bad faith registration and use See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows D2000-0003 WIPO Feb 18 2000 As such the Panel holds that

if the Panel finds so-called passive holding in bad faith The concept of passive holding in bad faith was first laid out in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The Panel finds passive holding since it