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

always parked However passive holding or non-use of a domain name will not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding Rather panellists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case including i the

circumstances the non-use or passive holding of the disputed domain name does not preclude a finding that it is being used in bad faith The disputed domain name can only be taken as intending to cause confusion with the Complainant �s trademark

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Holding Le Duff �HLD � v Franck James Case No D2019-0150 1 The Parties The Complainant is Holding Le Duff �HLD � of Rennes France represented by SCAN Avocats France The Respondent is Franck James of Opdyke Illinois

to be false and f the current passive holding of the disputed domain with no active content or contemplated bona fide offering of goods or services For the reasons above the Respondent �s conduct has to be considered in this Panel �s view as bad

of its rights and the passive holding of the disputed domain name for purposes of selling licensing or renting based on the offer to public as well as attracting internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with

trademarks and subsequent passive holding of such a domain name thus preventing the trademark holder from registering such a domain name is considered to satisfy the standard set out in paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy 7 Decision For the

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

� This Panel finds that passive holding of the disputed domain name ɪnstagram.com xn--nstagram-9ud.com does not prevent a finding of bad faith given the strength and renown of the Complainant �s trademark Such was the opinion of the Panel in

of the disputed domain name Passive holding amounts to bad faith use under the circumstances of the present case see Awesome Kids LLC and/or Awesome Kids L.L.C v Selavy Communications WIPO Case No D2001-0210 �passive holding coupled with

faith under the doctrine of passive holding Factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant s mark the failure of the respondent to provide

it is well established that passive holding i.e the incorporation of a famous trademark into a domain name coupled with an inactive website may be evidence of bad faith registration and use The Complainant also states that the Respondent has

case Respondent s so called passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith Particularly in the light of the fame of the Complainant s mark the failure of the Respondent to submit a response and to provide any

finding that inactive use or passive holding of the disputed domain name by a respondent permits the inference that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain names Here Complainant provides a screenshot displaying the

Get this Domain This kind of passive holding in these circumstances also does not qualify as a good faith offer of goods or services under the Policy See e.g WIPO Overview 3.0 section 2.9 Accordingly the Panel finds that the Complainant has

revenue Further Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name indicates bad faith Finally Respondent had actual and constructive knowledge of Complainant s rights in the SWISS and SWISSAIR mark prior to registering and subsequent use of

inference of bad faith from passive holding of a domain name The Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith DECISION Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy the Panel

contends that Respondent s passive holding of the wazeeats.com and wazerush.com domain names demonstrates bad faith Failure to actively use a disputed domain name may indicate bad faith under Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See Regions Bank v Darla

faith under the doctrine of passive holding see WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 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

faith under the doctrine of passive holding see WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 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