2012 finding 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 Given the forgoing Complainant s unrebutted showing that

2012 finding 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 Given the forgoing Complainant s unrebutted showing that

it is well established that passive holding of a domain name could amount to 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 trade mark of another Passive holding of a domain name containing a mark with a reputation can be bad faith registration and use See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows D2000-0003 WIPO Feb 18 2000 As such the Panel holds that

to be a case however brief of passive holding Applying the helpful summary of cases set out in the WIPO Jurisprudential Overview version 3.0 para 3.2 taking note of the line of cases commencing with WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Telstra v Nuclear

Edition WIPO Overview 3.0 passive holding as such does not prevent a finding of bad faith The Respondent used the disputed domain names to target the Complainant Given that the Complainant is providing payment solutions it is likely that

faith from the Respondent s passive holding of the Domain Name when no legitimate use could be conceived as well as from the Respondent s advertising the Domain Name for sale at a price far in excess of out-of-pocket costs B Respondent The

domain name constitutes passive holding in bad faith The Complainant s trade mark which is long-established and widely known is solely connected with the Complainant There is no evidence of any actual or contemplated good faith use of the

�s current �non-use � or passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith given the strong reputation and renown of Complainant �s trademark the absence of evidence of actual or contemplated good faith use by Respondent and

�s current �non-use � or passive holding of the disputed domain names constitutes bad faith given the strong reputation and renown of Complainant �s trademark the absence of evidence of actual or contemplated good faith use by Respondent and

faith under the doctrine of passive holding WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 By not submitting a Response the Respondent offered no information that might have led the Panel to question the Complainant �s arguments that the Respondent is using the

of what has become known as passive holding Passive holding of a domain name that copies a mark can be evidence of bad faith under Policy Paragraph 4 a iii Beginning with the decision in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows

in UDRP decisions that the passive or inactive holding of a domain name that incorporates registered trademarks without a legitimate Internet purpose may indicate that the domain name is being used in bad faith under paragraph 4 a iii of the

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

AB Electrolux v Nexperian Holding Limited / yan guodong Shang Hai You Yang Jin Chu Kou Mao Yi You Xian Gong Si Case No D2018-2097 1 The Parties The Complainant is AB Electrolux of Stockholm Sweden represented by SILKA Law AB Sweden The

alter this conclusion since passive holding of a domain name containing a well-known mark especially in conjunction with the provision of false WhoIs information can still constitute bad faith Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows

FA 220042 Forum Jan 28 2004 holding respondent s passive holding of the domain names constitutes bad faith and stating The Panel will not wait until the domain names have actually been used before finding bad faith because it is inconceivable

on Respondent s inactive holding of the solarsturbines.com domain name Inactive holding may evince bad faith registration and use under Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See Lyft Inc v Stylianos Kandias FA 1795070 Forum Aug 5 2018 While panelists will

non-legitimate use/passive holding of the domain name over the last 15 years Reverse Domain Name Hijacking is without merit because Respondent has failed to use the domain name when it intended to use it at the outset and desired to sell the

is currently inactive However passive holding of a domain name can also be an evidence of bad faith use Furthermore email servers have been activated for the disputed domain name and it is hard to imagine in which legitimate way such emails would