the Panel finds that the passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith registration and use in the circumstances of the case Accordingly the Panel finds on the basis of the evidence presented that 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 This disputed domain name fails to resolve to a website

possible that a r espondent s passive holding amounts to bad faith The Telstra decision states that paragraph 4 b recognizes that inaction e.g passive holding in relation to a domain name registration can in certain circumstances constitute a

faith under the doctrine of passive holding see 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 includes

page which constitutes passive holding A cease and desist letter sent by the Complainant remained unanswered The inactive page of the disputed domain name causes prejudice to the Complainant as it may create the impression that the latter

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

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

faith under the doctrine of passive holding see par 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 One has to look at the circumstances of a case taking into account in particular the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the Complainant s mark the failure of

finds that the Respondent �s passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith use For the above-cited reasons the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith Therefore

Name and as of this day is passively holding it without using it for any purpose Previous UDRP panels have found that the non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding see among others

the disputed domain name 2 passive holding of a disputed domain name may evidence bad faith 3 there is no plausible reason for Respondent to have registered the disputed domain name other than to take unfair advantage of Complainant 4 Respondent

consistently found that the passive holding of a domain name does not preclude a finding of use in bad faith Panelists should consider the totality of the circumstances in each case and considering the circumstances in this case the Panel is

again points to Respondent �s passive holding of the disputed domain names and notes i that Complainant is well known in the United Kingdom and beyond by the HMRC Trademark which has been in use for at least 23 years prior to registration of the

faith under the doctrine of passive holding section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 The Panel additionally notes that the Respondent has made a compelling case that the disputed domain names were registered by unknown persons who made unauthorized

finds that the doctrine of passive holding is applicable to this case According to Section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 �while panelist will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case factors that have been considered relevant in

to an active website and is passively used The passive holding of a domain name identical to a third party's renown trademark does not confer to the Respondent´s legitimate rights or interests under the Policy The Respondent has registered and

to an inactive webpage passive holding of a domain name can amount to bad faith use when consideration is given to a respondent �s behaviour see the UDRP decision of Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003

possible that a r espondent s passive holding amounts to bad faith The Telstra decision states that paragraph 4 b recognizes that inaction e.g passive holding in relation to a domain name registration can in certain circumstances constitute a

semiconductor active and passive components from various manufacturers as well as GPS and RF modules in Argentina Complainant has common law rights in its CIKA.COM mark and used the cika.com Domain Name as its primary website and email address

websites such nonuse or passive holding of a domain name is not a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy Paragraph4 c i Michelin North America Inc v Energie Media Group FA 451882 Nat Arb Forum Aug