ADMINISTRATOR / PORTMEDIA HOLDINGS LTD Claim Number FA1805001785667 PARTIES Complainant is Aqua Engineering & Equipment Inc Complainant represented by Marianne Marianne of Aqua Engineering & Equipment Inc Florida USA Respondent is DOMAIN

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

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

above the Respondent �s passive holding of the disputed domain name amounts to use in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy The Panel therefore finds that disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad

incorporated a famous mark Passive holding is yet another evidence of bad faith registration and use aimed at preventing the rights holder from registering the domain in its name FINDING OF ABUSE or MATERIAL FALSEHOOD The Examiner may find that

incorporated a famous mark Passive holding is yet another evidence of bad faith registration and use aimed at preventing the rights holder from registering the domain in its name FINDING OF ABUSE or MATERIAL FALSEHOOD The Examiner may find that

domain name Such an extended passive holding in the circumstances described in the Complaint demonstrates Respondent s bad faith registration and use of it under Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See for example VideoLink Inc v Xantech Corporation FA608735

under the doctrine of passive holding Part and parcel with the doctrine of passive holding is the implausibility of any good faith use to which the domain name may be put paragraph 3.3 of the WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 Telstra

name to the Complainant and passively holding the disputed domain name villagecandle-europe.com is engaged in bad faith conduct under the Policy The Respondent �s passive holding of the disputed domain name is interfering with the Complainant �s

be false However the Telstra holding does not turn on the use of false contact information rather the central holding of that case is that passive holding of a domain name which incorporates a well-known mark can itself suffice to establish bad

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

This appears to amount to a passive holding of the disputed domain name as there is no indication on the record of any particular use by the Respondent Past UDRP panels have considered a number of factors when determining whether a holding is

opinion the current passive holding of the disputed domain name in the context of typosquatting does not prevent a finding of bad faith registration and use See FORUM Case No FA 1727521 Bloomberg Finance L.P v Wilson Brown / bloomberq

faith under the doctrine of passive holding B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant �s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4 a of the Policy sets forth the following three requirements which have to be met for

interests in the Domain Name Passive holding of a domain name containing a famous mark is registration and use in bad faith B Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding FINDINGS Complainant is the owner of the well-known

the Policy The subsequent passive holding of the disputed domain name also qualifies as bad faith use under the Policy in the circumstances of this case Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003.2 Accordingly

with an active website his passive holding of the disputed domain name may amount to bad faith use The disputed domain name was registered only five days after news articles were first published about a potential merger between the Complainants

inactive websites This passive holding by the Respondent indicates his bad faith registration and use in accordance with paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy because none of the websites resolved to are genuinely active websites which would

argues Respondent is passively holding the guesslicensinginc.com domain name Inactive holding of a domain name does not constitute as a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy

� is a generic term and his passive holding of the Domain Name for many years supports the allegation that Respondent clearly intended to target Complainant �s PROEZA mark In response Respondent asserts that PROEZA is not a �recognized � mark