panels and the doctrine of passive holding as allowing a finding of use in bad faith The Complainant also relies on the fact that the use of crack in the disputed domain name shows that it was likely created for illicit purposes such as the

mark the registration and passive holding of the disputed domain name by the Respondent who has no connection with the Complainant supports a finding of bad faith In addition MX servers were initially activated in relation with the disputed

webpage and is held passively by Respondent Previous UDRP panels have found bad faith in passive use where the Complainant has a well-known trademark and the Respondent provides evidence of good faith use As stated above the Respondent

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

faith under the doctrine of passive holding The Respondent has kept silent in the face of the Complainants allegations of bad faith Taking into account these circumstances the Panel finds that the Respondent must have known of the Complainants

not resolve to a website Such passive holding by the Respondents does not preclude the existence of rights or legitimate interests However the france domain differs from the Complainant s official domain name by only a hyphen and the Respondents

concludes that the present passive holding of the disputed domain names constitutes a bad faith use putting emphasis on the following the Complainant s trademark is distinctive and fanciful and used/registered globally the Respondent has failed

active website However such passive holding of the website does not prevent the Panel from finding registration and use in bad faith see section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 The Panel also notes that Respondent s previous use of the website at

regard the Panel finds that holding a domain name passively without making any use of it does not confer any rights or legitimate interests on the Respondent see earlier UDRP decisions such as Bollore SE v 赵竹飞 Zhao Zhu Fei WIPO Case No

domain name constitutes a passive holding in bad faith and/or has been used to promote the Registrar s services by creating a likelihood of confusion in accordance with paragraph 4 b iv of the Policy B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to

which confirmed that the passive holding of a domain name with knowledge that the domain name infringes another party s trademark rights is evidence of bad faith registration and use e.g WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Telstra Corporation Limited v

faith under the doctrine of passive holding In its determination the Panel considered the degree of distinctiveness and reputation of the Complainant s SUPERCELL and BRAWL STARS marks as well as the Respondent s failure to respond in the face of

this in conjunction with its passive holding of the disputed domain name and the use of a privacy service to try and mask its identity are factors that are further indicative of bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the

Complainant the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith when taking into account the distinctiveness or reputation of the Complainant s mark and the implausibility of any good faith use to

faith under the doctrine of passive holding Section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 states that relevant factors to finding bad faith in passive holding include i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant s mark ii the failure

an active website The current passive holding of the disputed domain name does not absolve the Respondent of bad faith registration and use and in fact under the circumstances of this case is further evidence of bad faith registration and use See

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

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

to an inactive web site.  Passive holding of a domain name is evidence of bad faith.  This may not fit within any of the circumstances described in Policy ¶ 4 b but that paragraph recognizes that mischief can assume many different forms and

faith under the doctrine of passive holding Section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 states that relevant factors to finding bad faith in passive holding include i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant s mark ii the failure