This site can t be reached Passive holding of a Domain Name in these circumstances can also be bad faith B Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding FINDINGS The Complainant is the owner of the mark SLINGSHOT

disputed domain name Further passive holding will not prevent from a finding of bad faith Even if the disputed domain name is not actively used the Panel notes that i the Complainant s trademark is indeed distinctive and rather well-known

4 a ii see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v Gregory Ricks FA 1549327 Forum Apr 12 2014 holding that under Policy Paragraph 4 a ii Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests

disputed domain name is being passively held The Panel agrees with the Panel in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 that there are circumstances in which passive holding of a disputed domain name can

Respondent is currently holding the Domain Name passively and used a privacy service to shield its identity Such conduct amounts to registration and use of the Domain Name in bad faith B Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant �s

by previous UDRP panels that passive holding does not as such confer any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name See e.g Dr Martens and Dr Martens WIPO Case No D2017-0246 Accordingly the Panel concludes that the Complainant has satisfied

reasonably be claimed The passive holding of the Domain Name does not preclude a finding of bad faith The Respondent has not provided any evidence of actual or contemplated use in good faith of the Domain Name and the Respondent has never

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 element in the disputed domain name is the Complainant �s trademark the high degree of distinctiveness and

an inactive website This passive holding can amount to bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant �s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings To succeed the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements

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

of content Respondent s passive holding of the at-issue domain name shows neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy Paragraph 4 c i nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy Paragraph 4 c iii See Michelin

of content Respondent s passive holding of the at-issue domain name shows neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy Paragraph 4 c i nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy Paragraph 4 c iii See Michelin

fair use Rather Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name Respondent registered the domain name using a privacy service to mask its identity Respondent registered

website that constitutes the passive holding Passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name cannot be considered as a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name without intent for

Case No D2000-0003 that mere passive holding of a domain name constitutes use in bad faith Accordingly the Complainants have established all three requirements under the Policy 6 Decision For the foregoing reasons in accordance with paragraphs 4 i

the Respondent �s continued passive holding of the disputed domain name has in any way targeted the Complainant �s mark The Complainant submits that it received no reply to its correspondence regarding a possible transfer of the disputed domain

contact the trade mark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith see Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and HUGO BOSS Trade Mark Management GmbH & Co KG HUGO BOSS AG v Dzianis

use Thus the Respondent is holding the disputed domain name passively It has long been generally held in UDRP decisions that the passive holding of a domain name that incorporates a well-known trademark without obvious use for an Internet

domain name is currently passively held and reminds itself that non-use thereof does not in and of itself prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding see section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 On this topic the

the Panel is prepared to find passive holding of the disputed domain name in bad faith in line with the cases which have followed the reasoning first laid out in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Whilst the