raises the issue of �passive holding � Arguably this doctrine is inapplicable because the disputed domain name has been used in the manner explained above In any case the factors which typically arise in a case of passive holding are entirely

It is well established that passive use or non-use of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 The Respondent clearly stated that it was its intention to use the

name in bad faith because 1 passive holding of a domain name may constitute bad faith use 2 Complainant �s trademark has a high level of distinctiveness 3 there is no plausible good faith use to which Respondent could put the disputed domain name

raises the issue of �passive holding � Arguably this doctrine is inapplicable because the disputed domain name has been used for a sale page as explained above In any case the factors which typically arise in a case of passive holding are entirely

bad faith Finally inactive or passive holding of the Disputed Domain Names by the Respondent may amount to bad faith use See Advance Magazine Publishers Inc and Les Publications Condé Nast S.A v ChinaVogue.com WIPO Case No D2005-0615 Société

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

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

are circumstances in which passive holding of a disputed domain name can constitute use in bad faith Albeit the Respondent �s claims that she is not in bad faith the Panel is of the opinion that the circumstances of the present case render it

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

that the Respondent �s passive holding of the disputed domain name for 11 years does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests and that even if a domain name corresponds to a dictionary term or phrase it must genuinely be used in

non commercial fair use Passive holding of a domain name containing a mark with a reputation and typosquatting are both per se bad faith The Domain Name has also been registered to confuse Internet users and to disrupt the business 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 of the case to determine whether a respondent is acting in bad faith See WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 The

The Complainant says that the passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name is itself indicative of bad faith registration and use and refers to various previous UDRP cases in this regard B Respondent The Respondent is a Swedish holding company It is

be or is claimed to be held passively without any evident usage or purpose Previous UDRP panels have already considered that passive holding of a disputed domain name can satisfy the requirements of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy and that in

of the principles of �passive holding � Section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 explains that from the inception of the UDRP panels have found that the non-use of a domain name including a �coming soon � page would not prevent a finding of bad faith

name is currently inactive 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

being used even by arguable passive holding in bad faith Given the evidence of the Complainant �s prior rights in the trademark the timing of the registration of the Domain Name with apparent full knowledge of the Complainant �s trademark and 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 Here Complainant provides a screenshot of the current

may also be considered a passive holding as Respondent fails to make any substantive use of the Domain Names Respondent registered and uses the Domain Names in bad faith Respondent uses them to intentionally attract Internet users to the

provided by the Registrar 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