finding that inactive use or passive holding of disputed domain names by a UDRP respondent permits the inference that respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain names The Panel therefore finds that Complainant has satisfied 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

dictionary word or phrase The passive holding or non-use of domain names is in appropriate circumstances evidence of a lack of rights or legitimate interests in the domain names see Red Bull GmbH v Credit du Léman SA Jean-Denis Deletraz WIPO Case

decisions 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 In particular the consensus view of WIPO UDRP panelists is

and its related entity KCG IP Holdings LLC v Kannan Murali / Digital Intelligence LLC Claim Number FA1812001819680 PARTIES Complainants are Citadel Enterprise Americas LLC and its related entity KCG IP Holdings LLC Complainants represented by Paul

faith under the doctrine of passive holding WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 Factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant s mark ii the

and are not being used the passive holding of the Disputed Domain Names constitutes a factor in finding bad faith in the registration and use Moreover the Respondent registered numerous domain names which infringe the Complainant s trademark

also asserts that ostensible passive holding of the disputed domain name amounts to bad faith due to the strength and worldwide renown of the IBM trademark B Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and

to an active website and passive holding does not prevent a finding of bad faith registration and use Therefore the Panel agrees with the said contention of the Complainants and concludes that the registration of the disputed domain name

act on the part of Respondent Passive holding of a domain name can constitute a factor in finding bad faith registration and use In this case the Disputed Domain Name is identical to Complainant s CHATROULETTE trademark and Respondent has made no

s bad faith because passive holding may constitute evidence of bad faith particularly when the trademark is well-known and the Registrant contact information furnished for the WhoIs database is false 35 Given the Complainant s strong

under the Policy that the passive holding of a domain name registered in such circumstances can constitute use in bad faith Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 the Telstra case It may be arguable that some

and use under the doctrine of passive holding in accordance with section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 In view of the Panel all the above discussed facts and circumstances support applicability of paragraph 4 b iv of the Policy and the Panel finds

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

of BHP Billiton Limited holding some of BHP Billiton s intellectual property The Complainant is the owner of the trademark containing or comprising BHP BILLITON across many countries and possesses a numerous trademark registrations some of

of the Policy Itaú Unibanco Holding S.A v Valdery Dos Santos Decorações ME WIPO Case No D2009-1335 LACER S.A v Constanti Gómez Marzo WIPO Case No D2001-0177 Here the Panel considers the Respondent s passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name

connected to a website the passive holding of a domain name with knowledge that the domain name infringes another party s trademark rights being evidence of bad faith registration and use there is no conceivable use that the Respondent could

faith under the doctrine of passive holding cf 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 i

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

ix The Complainant s inactive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes use in bad faith on the basis of the doctrine of passive holding in the circumstances referred to in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No