It is well established that passive use or non-use of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 The disputed domain name comprises of the whole of the Complainant

Finance L.P v Nexperian Holding Limited Claim Number FA1804001782013 PARTIES Complainant is Bloomberg Finance L.P Complainant represented by Brendan T Kehoe of Bloomberg L.P New York USA Respondent is Nexperian Holding Limited Respondent

of use in bad faith In fact passive holding of a domain name can also be considered under certain circumstances as use in bad faith section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions Third Edition WIPO Overview 3.0

it is well established that passive holding of a domain name could amount to bad faith under certain circumstances as decided i.a in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 In the case at hand in view of the

that the doctrine of passive holding of the disputed domain name is applicable to the circumstances of this case See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 Can the

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 include

names are currently being passively held That such passive holding does not prevent a finding of bad faith given the overall circumstances of this case B Respondent The Respondent did not file a formal Response to the Complaint In their email

have already stated that such passive holding of a disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith particularly in light of all relevant circumstances See e.g American Society of Hematology v Domain Admin C/O ID 10760 Privacy

AGFA-Gevaert N.V v Nexperian Holding Limited / Sun Di Guo Case No D2018-0752 1 The Parties The Complainant is AGFA-Gevaert N.V of Mortsel Belgium represented by Novagraaf Belgium NV/SA Belgium The Respondent is Nexperian Holding Limited of

the Disputed Domain Name 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 Jean-Denis Deletraz WIPO Case No D2011-2209 American Home Products

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 the Panel finds that such passive holding amounts to bad

took over all the active and passive assets of the merged company in all contractual relations actions rights obligations and obligations of the latter of any nature � The Panel finds that in light of the seven International Trademark

registration and passive holding of a domain name that cannot be used legitimately may amount to bad faith The Complainant says that the Respondent has been involved in a pattern of the registration of domain names incorporating

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 see Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows supra Jupiters Limited v Aaron Hall WIPO Case No D2000-0574 UDRP panels look at the totality of circumstances of each case to determine if passive

it is well established that passive holding of a domain name could amount to bad faith under certain circumstances as decided i.a in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 In the case at hand in view of i the

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 � Having regard to all elements of the case at hand and in particular to the identity between the Complainant �s trademark and the disputed domain names the distinctiveness and intensive use of the

have confirmed that the passive holding of a domain name coupled with other circumstances indicative of bad faith registration and use would suffice to establish the third element under the Policy see in this regard Telstra Corporation