faith under the doctrine of passive holding � Noting that the disputed domain name incorporates a well-known trademark that no response has been filed that there appears to be no conceivable good faith use that could be made by the Respondent of

anciennement Bridor Holding jusqu �en mars 2018 est une entreprise importante dans la réalisation de pâtisseries et la production de pain sous les marques BRIDOR et BRIDOR DE France Le Requérant est titulaire et exploite les marques

Complainant also discusses passive holding in relation to bad faith under this element This is presumed to be in support of the third element and is detailed below Registered and used in bad faith In respect of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy

a blank webpage constitutes passive holding of the Domain Name constituting no bona fide commercial or legitimate noncommercial or fair use The offering of the Domain Name for sale does not constitute a bona fide sale of goods or services or 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

Case No DNL2016-0040 as may passive holding of the Domain Name see Williams-Sonoma Inc v E Linders WIPO Case No DNL2013-0020 Noting also Respondent �s abovementioned failure to explain its registration of the Domain Name in the face of

faith under the doctrine of passive holding The Respondent has not denied that the disputed domain name is not being actively used Nevertheless the disputed domain name is identical to the PETPLAN trademark registered in multiple jurisdictions

the disputed domain name is passively held does not prejudge legitimate use of that domain rather such passive holding is deemed a bad faith indicator if the circumstances applying to this case are taken into account The Complainant states

to its submissions regarding passive holding of the disputed domain name or its discussion of its various attempts to persuade the Respondent to sell the disputed domain name to it The Panel merely notes that a registrant who has registered a

website and therefore a passive holding is a good evidence together with other elements of the Complainant s bad faith It is quite evident that the typodomain name was registered only to disrupt the Complainat s activities Typosquatting in

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

�s unsupported assertions on passive holding and bad faith Respondent relies on the consensus position that while passive holding does not prevent a finding of bad faith Panels must examine the cumulative circumstances of the case such as whether

Name and as of this day is passively holding it without using it for any purpose Previous UDPR 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 Revevol SARL v

faith under the doctrine of passive holding � In this case where the Respondent has used false and misleading contact details when registering the disputed domain names where the Respondent has not filed a response and where the Panel finds that

find that this case is one of passive holding where it is not possible to identify a situation where use would realistically be in good faith see WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 para 3.2 including its summary of the Telstra line of cases WIPO AMC

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

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

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

faith under the doctrine of passive holding � Factors that are considered as 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

website and notes that the passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith In the absence of any supporting assertions or evidence from Respondent the Panel also agrees there to be no plausible bona fide use