4 b ii Further because passive holding of a domain name is in circumstances like those before us a form of use Respondent s current passive holding of all of the challenged domain names separately demonstrates its bad faith in their

adding that inactive use or passive holding of a domain name can constitute use in bad faith as can the mere offer of sale The Complainant submits that the Respondent cannot credibly claim to have been unaware of the Complainant s trademark

submits that the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name evinces the Respondent s bad faith registration and use The Complainant further observes that marks with a high degree of inherent or acquired distinctiveness are entitled to

not actively used but merely passively held does not preclude a finding of bad faith use under the Policy Taking into account the overall circumstances of the case the Complainant submits that such passive holding of the disputed domain name is

Telstra decision found that passive holding of a domain name can constitute use in bad faith in the present case no positive action was being taken by the respondent in relation to the domain name and the panel concluded that such non-use

in 2013 Whether the passive holding of a domain name is acceptable or not depends on the circumstances of such holding Factors relevant in the present case include the length of time that Respondent registered the Domain Names prior to

faith under the doctrine of passive holding �While panellists 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

The Complainant cites the passive holding doctrine of Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Telstra B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings

well-established doctrine of passive holding set forth in the landmark case Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 which is applicable in this case B Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant s

In these circumstances the passive holding of domain names in connection with offers to sell constitutes evidence of bath faith registration and use Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The Panel accordingly

This site can t be reached Passive holding of a domain name has often been held to be evidence of no rights or legitimate interests in the name Dell Inc v link growth / Digital Marketing FA 1785283 Forum June 7 2018 Respondent s domain names

on the doctrine of bad faith passive holding as developed in Telstra Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 iv The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant B

use 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

fair use Rather Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain names Respondent registered and is using the coachella.band and coachella.video domain names in bad faith Respondent s bad faith is indicated by their passive holding of the domain

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 distinctive element in the disputed domain name is the Complainant s trademark the high degree of

faith under the principles of passive holding It is consensus view that the lack of an active use of a domain name does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy In such cases the panel must examine all the circumstances of the

to an inactive website The passive holding or non-use of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith See section3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 Annex 3 to Amended Response contains excerpts from the Wayback Machine online archive as

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

Name and as of this day is passively holding it without using it for any apparent purpose Previous UDRP panels have found that the non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding see among

Panel views such long-term passive holding as strong evidence of registration and use in bad faith WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 See also Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Accordingly the Panel finds that