UDRP panels have found that passive holding can constitute holding in bad faith and the panel must give attention to all of the surrounding circumstances and that reproducing famous trademarks in a domain name in order to attract Internet users

users may be confused The passive holding of some of the disputed domain names does not prevent a finding of bad faith Finally the passive and non-collaborative posture of the Respondent not at least providing justifications for the use of the

PANEL DECISION Grundfos Holding A/S v See PrivacyGuardian.org / Huang Huang Case No D2018-1099 1 The Parties The Complainant is Grundfos Holding A/S of Bjerringbro Denmark represented by Kromann Reumert Denmark The Respondent is See

long been established that passive holding of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith Under the given circumstances including the Complainant �s notoriety and the nature of the disputed domain name reflecting almost identically the

UDRP panels have held 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 of WIPO Panel Views

placed on the Respondent �s passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name as further evidence of bad faith B Respondent 5.4 The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant �s contentions Therefore in accordance with paragraphs 14 a and b of the

also argues that long term passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes use in bad faith based on the strong reputation of the SOFITEL mark Complainant also asserts that the disputed domain name is configured with an email server

been interpreted to encompass passive holding where warranted on the totality of the evidence taking into account � i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant �s mark ii the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to

is used in good faith Indeed passive holding does not preclude a finding of bad faith Previous Panels have already considered that passive holding of a domain name can satisfy the requirements of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy and that in such

� complained of is largely passive use Thereupon the Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to it The Complainant �s contentions and factual assertions are referenced further as appropriate in the Discussion and

�s domain name reverts to a holding page that does not make active use of Complainant �s mark However passive holding of the domain name registration can still constitute bad faith Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No

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

domain name constitutes passive holding in bad faith It is solely used to redirect users to third party websites B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant contentions 6 Discussion and Findings A Identical or Confusingly

to an inactive website The passive holding of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The Respondent has failed to respond to the Complaint There is no

urges the Panel to apply the passive holding doctrine to find bad faith as well as noting the potential for initial confusion and a pattern of bad faith registration in filing seven domain names based on confusingly similar strings B Respondent

the Panel takes the view that passive holding of the disputed domain does not preclude a finding of bad faith section 3.3 of WIPO Overview 3.0 nor does it detract from the Respondent bad faith as it has been established in prior UDRP decisions e.g

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Holding Le Duff �HLD � v Wang Lian Feng 王连凤 Case No D2018-1002 1 The Parties The Complainant is Holding Le Duff �HLD � of Rennes France represented by SCAN Avocats France The Respondent is Wang Lian Feng

or fair use Rather merely passively holding the disputed domain name Complainant then asserts that Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith because Respondent s actions are part of a speculative pattern of

had rights in the mark Passive holding of a disputed domain name in such circumstances is consistent with bad faith registration and use B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant �s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings

faith under the doctrine of passive holding � WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 �The lack of use of a domain name by itself does not indicate anything Nevertheless the