to the conclusion that the passive holding of the domain names by Respondent amounts to acting in bad faith as well fulfilling the requirement of use in bad faith too see Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003

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

cases of so-called �passive holding � as found in the landmark UDRP decision Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 In the circumstances of this case and in the absence of any Response to the Complaint the

Nat Arb Forum April 30 2011 holding such non-use of the domain name is evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name Further the passive holding of a domain name does not establish rights or legitimate

bad faith in connection with passive holding of the disputed domain name B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant �s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4 a of the Policy lists three elements that the Complainant

was searchable on Archive Org Passive holding of a DN has been confirmed in WIPO decisions to include within the term being used in bad faith see Natixis v Contact Privacy Inc Customer 0150507289 / Kevin Deffolin Case No D2018-0690 B Respondent

such website Respondent is passively holding the Domain Name Complainant contends that Respondent �s passive holding of the Domain Name does not constitute a bona fide or legitimate business use Complainant states that it has not authorized

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

that the Respondent has passively held the disputed domain name since its registration and asserts that passive holding of a domain name is evidence of registration and use of the domain name in bad faith The Complainant reiterates that the

the trade mark of another Passive holding of a domain name containing a mark with a reputation can be bad faith registration and use See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows D2000-0003 WIPO Feb 18 2000 Further pointing a domain

alleges that Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name The passive holding of a domain name may constitute bad faith registration and use under Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See VideoLink Inc v Xantech Corporation FA1503001608735 Forum

the Policy have held that passively holding a domain name can constitute a factor in finding bad faith registration and use pursuant to the Policy paragraph 4 a iii See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003

on the Respondent �s part and passive holding of a domain name can constitute bad faith registration and use under the Policy The disputed domain name registration must have been intended to cause confusion among Internet users as to the source of

11 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

any active website so-called passive holding of the domain name As held in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and confirmed in later UDRP cases the passive holding of a domain name can in certain

The Complainant relies on the passive holding doctrine that infers bad faith from the lack of plausible alternative reasons for a silent respondent to have registered and maintained domain names that are based on a well-known and distinctive

faith under the doctrine of passive holding In the circumstances and in the absence of a plausible reply from the Respondent the Panel considers that any use of the disputed domain name for an actual website would have to be in bad faith Finally

established that the mere passive holding of a domain name may in appropriate circumstances be evidence not only of bad faith registration but also of bad faith use See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003

No D2000-0050 Volvo Trademark Holding AB v SC-RAD Inc WIPO Case No D2003-0601 Wal-Mart Stores Inc v Lars Stork WIPO Case No D2000-0628 America Online Inc v Dolphin@Heart WIPO Case No D2000-0713 AltaVista Company v S M A Inc WIPO Case No D2000-0927

WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The passive holding of a domain name may amount to bad faith registration and use when it is difficult to imagine any conceivable future use of the domain name that would be legitimate and would not infringe a complainant