in bad faith where there is passive use of a well-known trademark in a domain name WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows and WIPO Case No D2002-0131 Ladbroke Group Plc v Sonoma International LDC Under the

faith under the doctrine of passive holding see WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 The Complainant s trademark has a degree of distinctiveness the Domain Name is almost identical to the Complainant s trademark and the Respondent has not provided any

domain names in this case are passively held but for no conceivably lawful use Telstra supra also National Football League v Thomas Trainer D2006-1440 WIPO December 29 2006 nflnetwork.com holding that when a registrant such as respondent here

faith under the doctrine of passive holding see also Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and Dr Martens International Trading GmbH and Dr Maertens Marketing GmbH v Godaddy.com Inc WIPO Case No D2017-0246 On

faith under the doctrine of passive holding See section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 In these circumstances the Panel holds that the disputed domain names were registered and used in bad faith The Panel finds that the above constitutes

Panel finds that the current passive holding of the disputed domain names does not prevent a finding of bad faith use As also established in a number of prior cases the concept of bad faith use in paragraph 4 b of the Policy includes not only

reason it is obvious that the passive holding of the disputed domain name by the Respondent amounts to use in bad faith The Complainant then states further that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to pretend to be the Complainant and

an active website and is thus passively held As also established in a number of prior cases the concept of bad faith use in paragraph 4 b of the Policy includes not only positive action but also passive holding see the landmark case Telstra

This Panel finds that the passive holding of the disputed domain name in such circumstances constitutes use in bad faith for the purposes of the Policy because the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant s AXA mark the Respondent

website which constitutes passive holding/non-use Lastly the Complainant alludes to paragraph 4 b iv of the Policy to reinforce its bad faith claim The Complainant therefore concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed

inactive which constitutes passive holding In the WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmellows the Panel established that the registration and passive holding of a domain name which has no other legitimate use and

faith Nor is the principle of passive holding relevant in this situation as this involves an assessment of whether the totality of the circumstances indicate that a passively-held domain name was registered to target the complainant The Panel would

can be found Respondent's passive holding of the at-issue domain name shows neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4 c i nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4 c iii See Thermo Electron Corp v Xu

an active website The current passive holding of the disputed domain name does not absolve the Respondent of bad faith registration and use and in fact under the circumstances of this case is further evidence of bad faith registration and use A

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

foi La présente situation de passive holding correspond très exactement aux observations figurant à la Synthèse de l OMPI version 3.0 section 3.3 à savoir notoriété de la marque défaut du Défendeur se dispensant donc de répondre masquage

held under the doctrine of passive holding that the non-use of a domain would not prevent a finding of bad faith see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions Third Edition section 3.3 More precisely it is possible in certain

domain names in this case are passively held but for no conceivably lawful use Telstra supra also National Football League v Thomas Trainer D2006-1440 WIPO December 29 2006 nflnetwork.com holding that when a registrant such as respondent here

further contends that the passive holding of the disputed domain names constitutes use in bad faith because of the lack of legitimate use and the clear reference to the Complainant s trademark According to the Complainant inference of bad faith

relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine are a the degree of distinctiveness and/or reputation of the complainant's trademark b the failure of the respondent to submit a response including providing evidence of contemplated good-faith