by many UDRP decisions on passive holding of a domain name with knowledge that the domain name infringes another party s trademark rights e.g Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 see also the consensus view

on the doctrine of bad faith passive holding as developed in Testra Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant �s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings

by the Respondent the passive holding would not prevent from finding of a bad faith use see WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 and the cases cited therein Based on the evidence submitted with the Complaint the extensive use as well as the

name has not been used the passive holding of a domain name amounts to use in bad faith Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Siemens AG v yinsi baohu yi kai qi / li zhe zhe li WIPO Case No D2017-0375 It is

is being used in bad faith Passive holding the disputed domain name under the circumstances discussed shows it is being used in bad faith The Panel accordingly finds the Complainant has successfully established the third element under paragraph

cases which have held that passive holding can constitute use in bad faith particularly in relation to well-known marks Regarding sanofiblockchain.com the Complainant submits that the disputed domain name was registered for the sole purpose of

relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant �s mark ii the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated

is used in good faith Indeed passive holding does not preclude a finding of bad faith 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

name Further the current passive holding of the disputed domain name in this context does not prevent a finding of bad faith registration and use All the points above lead to the conclusion by this Panel that the Respondent registered and is

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

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

considers the Respondent �s passive holding of the disputed domain names to be in bad faith The Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of any contemplated good-faith use of the disputed domain names and the Panel is unable to

faith under the doctrine of passive holding In this regard the Panel takes into account i the high degree of distinctiveness and reputation of the Complainant �s trademark ii the failure of the Respondent to submit a response or to provide any

the Respondent is simply passively holding the disputed domain name since its registration The Complainant submits that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith since the Respondent was obviously aware of the Complainant

that the Respondent �s passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name amounts to bad faith use The Respondent �s registration the Disputed Domain Name which is identical to the Trade Mark is detrimental to the reputation and business of the

website under the Domain Name Passive holding of the Domain Name does not prevent the Panel from finding registration and use in bad faith The Panel finally notes that Respondent has been found to have registered and used domain names in bad faith

is analogous to non-use or passive holding and does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use The Complainant produces evidence of such uses both the PPC links pages and the �coming soon �

name under the doctrine of passive holding The Complainant submits that by registering and using the Disputed domain name it seems clear that the Respondent has registered the Disputed domain name in order to prevent the Complainant to register

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

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 see in this regard Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear