active use of the domain name passive holding does not prevent a finding of bad faith under certain circumstances as decided i.a in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 In the case at hand in view of i the

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

website rather they have been passively held only At the time of this decision all the disputed domain names are passively held 5 Parties Contentions A Complainant The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant s DYSON

used in good faith because passive holding does not preclude a finding of bad faith and g an email server has been configured on the disputed domain name and thus there is a risk that the Respondent has or is intending to engage in a phishing

of the Respondent instead passively holding a domain name can constitute a factor in finding bad faith registration and use pursuant to the Policy paragraph 4 a iii The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant s PETPLAN trademark in

and its related entity KCG IP Holdings LLC v Andres Ybarnegaray / CITADEL INVERSIONES Claim Number FA1812001821205 PARTIES Complainant is Citadel Enterprise Americas LLC and its related entity KCG IP Holdings LLC Complainant represented by Paul D

assert the argument that passive holding of a domain name is evidence of no rights or legitimate interests the Complaint Exhibit G evidence would support that argument UDRP panels have often held that using a domain name for an inactive web

of bad faith under the passive holding principles which are laid out in section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 In this case the totality of the circumstances to be considered include the fame of the Complainant s trade mark the use by the

of bad faith under the passive holding principles which are laid out in section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 In this case the totality of the circumstances to be considered includes the fame of the Complainant s trade mark the failure of the

Complainant the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name does not preclude a finding of bad faith registration and use in the circumstances of this case B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6

by reason of the principle of passive holding as first enunciated in the case of Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The Panel finds that the reasoning set out in that case applies with equal force here The

faith under the doctrine of passive holding see WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 especially in the circumstances of the case where the disputed domain was used in bad faith clearly targeting the Complainant For a similar finding see Oculus VR LLC v

of the doctrine of passive holding and therefore registration and use in bad faith may also be found See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 in case of passive holding Indeed the well-known

contact the trade mark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith The panel must examine all the circumstances of the case to determine whether the respondent is acting in bad faith Examples of what may be cumulative

bad faith is indicated by its passive holding of the infineontechnologie.com domain name As held in many prior UDRP decisions passive holding of a domain name can indicate bad faith per Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See Telstra Corporation Limited v

domain name redirects to a holding page and is being passively held Nevertheless the consensus view of previous UDRP panels is that passive holding in itself does not preclude a finding of bad faith The panel must examine all the circumstances

Domain Name amounts to passive holding B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings 6.1 Language of the Proceeding The language of the registration agreement is Chinese Therefore the

this Panel to decide that the passive holding of the disputed domain name is bad faith use Accordingly the requirement of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy is met 7 Decision For the foregoing reasons in accordance with paragraphs 4 i of the Policy

finds that the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain names amounts to use in bad faith Factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the

domain name results from its passive holding since it is inactive and from the combination of the previously underlined circumstances such as the notoriety of CREDIT MUTUEL trademarks The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain