the 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 distinctiveness of the Complainant s mark the failure of the Respondent to submit a response and to

The Complainant submits that passively holding the disputed domain name the Respondent is using it in bad faith v The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to

Complainant submits that by passively holding the disputed domain name and using it to generate a domain name address for phishing purposes the Respondent is using it in bad faith v The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be

Complainant submits that by passively holding the disputed domain name the Respondent is using it in bad faith v The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to

the 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 distinctiveness of the Complainant s mark the failure of the Respondent to submit a response and to

registration in bad faith The passive holding of the disputed domain name registered in such circumstances is also use in bad faith under the Policy see e.g Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Accordingly in

faith under the doctrine of passive holding see WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 The Complainant s trademark is well known The Respondent has not provided any evidence of actual or contemplated good faith use Finally taking into account the

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 the Complainant s trademark the high degree of

and fbcandy.co constitute passive holding in bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings 6.1 Preliminary Matter Consolidation of Respondents The principles governing the

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

Respondent is currently holding the Domain Name without making any active use of it See Complaint Annex 4 sheet 1 Again in light of the nonexclusive open-ended nature of Policy Paragraph 4 b passive holding of a confusingly similar domain

that even inaction or passive use of the disputed domain name can constitute bad faith use This Panel agrees with the citation of the Complainant of Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 which suggests

faith under the doctrine of passive holding In the Panel view there are several factors relevant in the case to apply the passive holding doctrine i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant s trademark ii the failure of the

domain name indicates a passive holding of the disputed domain name According to the Panel the passive holding of the disputed domain name may amount to bad faith when it is difficult to imagine any plausible future active use of the disputed

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

s trademark rights The passive holding of a domain name under such circumstances is evidence of bad faith registration and use See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and WIPO Jurisprudential Overview

certain circumstances the passive holding of a domain name cannot prevent a finding of bad faith Factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the

gain The Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name in bad faith indicated by the incorporation of the Complainant �s entire trade mark in the disputed domain name the lack of an active website and the Respondent �s concealment

where the Respondent is passively holding a domain name and is not limited to undertaking a positive action in bad faith but encompasses positive inaction B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion

in many UDRP cases that passive holding under the appropriate circumstances falls within the concept of the domain name being used in bad faith As stated in Telstra Corporative Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 in order