bad faith Finally inactive or passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name by the Respondent may amount to bad faith use See Advance Magazine Publishers Inc and Les Publications Condé Nast S.A v ChinaVogue.com WIPO Case No D2005-0615 Société pour

cease and desist letter and passively holding the disputed domain name which incorporates the well-known mark ELECTROLUX B Respondent The Respondent did not respond to the Complainant �s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings According to

faith under the doctrine of passive holding While panellists 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

3.3 of the WIPO 3.0 considers passive holding by the Respondent and explains that �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

misleading consumers and then passively holding it The Complainant �s trademark has a strong reputation and in the circumstances it is not possible to contemplate a good faith use of it by the Respondent or so the Complainant contends The

various UDRP cases as to the passive holding of domain names that correspond to well-known trademarks B Respondent The Respondent has field a lengthy Response making numerous points The main ones are as follows The Respondent says he is not aware

such use nor the current passive holding of the Domain Name give rise to any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name For these reasons the Panel finds that Respondent �s use does not fall within the circumstances of paragraph 4 c of

When considering whether passive holding of a domain name might amount to bad faith panelists will consider the totality of the circumstances While it is true that parking pages and links could be evidence of bad faith registration and use the

Respondent that Respondent is passively holding the guess-style.com domain name i.e making no active use of it The failure of Respondent to make any active use of the contested domain name in the circumstances described in the Complaint does not

relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant mark ii the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated

finds that the Respondent �s passive holding of the Domain Name in the absence of any rights or legitimate interests in respect of it amounts to use of the Domain Name in bad faith As a result of the above the Panel finds that the Domain Name was

Name the Panel finds that the passive holding of the Domain Name incorporating the widely-known NATIXIS trademark as well as CYBERPLUS trademark and the descriptive term �pass � without any obvious actual or contemplated good faith use does not

name the Panel finds that the passive holding of the Domain Name incorporating the widely-known NATIXIS trademark as well as the descriptive term �banque � without any obvious actual or contemplated good faith use does not prevent a finding that

Name the Panel finds that the passive holding of the Domain Name incorporating the widely-known NATIXIS trademark as well as the descriptive term �paiementsecurise � without any obvious actual or contemplated good faith use does not prevent a

UDRP Panels have noted that passive holding of a domain name does not shield a respondent from a finding of bad faith See WIPO Panel Overview of Cases 3.0 section 3.3 which states From the inception of the UDRP panelists have found that the

mark Respondent �s continued passive holding of the disputed domain name since its registration constitutes evidence of bad faith B Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant �s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings Under paragraph 4 a of

iii 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 Dermtek Pharmaceuticals Ltd v

claims that this constitutes passive holding of the domain name by the Respondent The Complainant contends that such use constitutes registration and use in bad faith The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name B Respondent

bad faith notwithstanding the passive holding of the disputed domain name The fact that ESSELUNGA is well known as a trade mark of the Complainant and is a fanciful word make it inconceivable that the intention in registering the disputed domain

Panel finds the Respondent passive holding of the disputed domain name to amount to bad faith use Last but not least the Panel notes that there are no facts set out in the available record which could possibly justify the registration or passive