Web Store which amounts to passive holding Respondent registered and uses the garettmotion.com domain name in bad faith Respondent fails to make an active use of the resolving webpage associated with the domain name Further Respondent registered

matter and determines that passive holding is not proven as to this Domain Name The WHOIS information submitted as Complaint Exhibit 4 lists the registrant of the Domain Name as hugo hui This name bears no resemblance to the Domain Name UDRP

users to an inactive website Passive holding of a domain name is not a use indicative of rights or legitimate interests per Policy Paragraph 4 c i or iii See Morgan Stanley v Francis Mccarthy / Baltec Marine Llc FA 1785347 Forum June 8 2018 both

domain name The Panel finds passive holding in bad faith use in bad faith pursuant to the reasoning first laid out in the case of Telstra Corp v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case D2000-0003 The Panel finds registration and use in bad faith Panel

C 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

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

possible that a r espondent s passive holding amounts to bad faith In this case the lack of any substantive or legitimate use of the autozone.org domain name supports the conclusion that Respondent has registered and used the domain name in bad

It appears that Respondent passively holds the oportunpersonalloans.com domain name Inactively holding a confusingly similar domain name here is evidence of bad faith under Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See VideoLink Inc v Xantech Corporation

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

shield service A finding of passive domain name holding was made by the learned panel in a very similar case involving the domain name carrefour-pass.net Carrefour v Hamdi Math WIPO Case No D2018-2653 Therefore the Panel also finds that the

connected that Respondent �s passive holding of the disputed domain name qualifies as use in bad faith Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has satisfied the

finds that the Respondent �s passive holding and the surrounding circumstances also establish use of the disputed domain name in bad faith see e.g Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 In light of the above the

faith under the doctrine of passive holding � Having regard to all elements of the case at hand and in particular to the identity between the Complainant �s trademark and the disputed domain names to the distinctiveness and intensive use of the

the Panel finds that the passive holding of the disputed domain names incorporating the well-known CIC trademark without any obvious actual or contemplated good faith use supports a finding that the disputed domain names are being used in bad

Name is used in good faith Passive holding does not preclude a finding of bad faith Complainant refers to Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 in which the panel concluded that respondent �s passive holding

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

In certain circumstances passive holding can be sufficient to find bad faith use As discussed in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 the relevant issue whether under the circumstances of the case it can

is not a case of prolonged passive holding It is not in the Panel opinion indicative of bad faith for a domain name registrant to fail to immediately direct the disputed domain name to an active page within a month or two of registration However

fits the pattern of �passive holding � see WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 supported by the Respondent �s non-responsiveness and efforts to conceal his identity The Complainant urges that the �totality of the circumstances here unequivocally support

and use i.e the Respondent �s passive holding of the disputed domain name satisfies the requirement of bad faith Additionally the Complainant sent several cease and desist letters to the Respondent who ignored such attempts to resolve the dispute