implausible Thus the current passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith see e.g Abbott Diabetes Care Inc v Privacy Protection Hosting Ukraaine LLC / �'италий Броцман Vitalii Brocman WIPO Case

it is well-established that passive holding of a domain name does not prevent finding of bad faith use10 where �any good faith use to which the D omain N ame may be put �11 is implausible Taken the Respondent �s previous use of the Domain Name

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

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

relies on the Respondent �s passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name and various UDRP decisions that hold that this amounts to bad faith B Respondent As indicated above the Center received email correspondences from the Respondent including a

faith under the doctrine of passive holding � Section 3.3 WIPO Overview 3.0 The WIPO Overview 3.0 further states �While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case factors that have been considered relevant in applying

found that 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 Here Complainant provides screenshots of the disputed

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

the Respondents are passively holding the Domain Name which itself can be considered as a bad faith use of a domain name In the light of above registering a domain name corresponding to a reputable trademark and subsequent passive holding

letter Respondent �s passive holding of the disputed domain name satisfied the requirement of paragraph 4 a iii that the disputed domain name was being used in bad faith by Respondent because 1 Complainant �s trademark had a strong

is effectively engaged in passive holding of the disputed domain name within the terms originally established by Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The panel in Telstra noted that the question as to which

where there is non-use or passive holding of a disputed domain name that incorporates a known mark bad faith registration and use could be found Passive holding is typically found in circumstances when there is absence of an active website The

inactive and that the current passive holding of the disputed domain name in the context of typosquatting does not prevent a finding of bad faith registration and use The Panel agrees that the passive holding of a domain name does not necessarily

only positive action but also passive holding especially in cases of domain name registrations corresponding to distinctive and/or well-known trademarks see i.a the landmark case Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No

submits that by its passive holding the Respondent is using the disputed domain name 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

found that 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 Accordingly the Panel finds that this passive holding does

connected to any web site The passive holding of a disputed domain name with knowledge that this domain name infringes another party s trademark rights is the evidence of bad faith registration and use The Respondent has registered the disputed

so in bad faith and that its passive holding of the Domain Name is also in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4 b iv of the Policy on the basis of the principles set out in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No

hand the Panel finds that the passive holding of the disputed domain names constitutes use in bad faith Section 3.2 of WIPO Overview 3.0 states the following consensus view on this issue panels have found that the apparent lack of so-called active

found that 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 Complainant provides screenshots of the disputed domain