found that the concept of passive holding may apply even in the event of sporadic use or of the mere parking by a third party of a domain name See as an example WIPO Overview 3.0 paragraph 3.3 In the WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Telstra Corporation

claims that this constitutes passive holding of the disputed domain name by the Respondent The Complainant essentially contends that the Respondent has nevertheless maintained the disputed domain name to prevent the Complainant to register its

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 reputation of the

disputed domain name is held passively Passive holding of a disputed domain name may be considered as evidence of bad faith under the appropriate circumstances Such circumstances include the failure of the Respondent to submit a response to submit

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 and the

the Respondent �s current passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes use in bad faith as the JACADI Trademark is well-known in Europe including in the Netherlands Furthermore the Respondent used the JACADI Trademark on its website

Firenze S.p.A v Parnassia Holding b.v Case No DNL2018-0008 1 The Parties Complainant is Carapelli Firenze S.p.A of Tavarnelle Val di Pesa Italy represented by Herrero & Asociados Spain Respondent is Parnassia Holding b.v of Utrecht Netherlands

that the Respondent �s passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes registration and use in bad faith insofar as the disputed domain name is being used as a blocking registration and thus preventing the Complainant from using 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 Consequently the Complainant contends that three elements under the Policy have been established and requests for a transfer of the Disputed Domain Names to the Complainant B Respondent The Respondent

The Respondent �s passive holding of the disputed domain name for more than 16 years without using it for anything other than �bare-bones � pay-per-click advertising The Respondent �s demand for payment of 5000 an amount that the

the disputed domain name by passively holding the disputed domain name Respondent prevents the Complainants from using it for legitimate commercial purposes the Respondent is engaged in a pattern of registration of domain names incorporating

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

the trade mark of another Passive holding of a domain name containing a mark with a reputation can be bad faith registration and use See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows D2000-0003 WIPO Feb 18 2000 The Complainant has to the

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 third part of paragraph 4 a of the Policy is therefore satisfied 7

for two typos Respondent �s passive holding of the disputed domain name fails to evidence any bona fide use and is not supported by any valid trademark These facts are indicative of bad faith in the sense of paragraph 4 b of the Policy The Panel

It is established that passive holding does not prevent a finding of bad faith Previous panels already concluded that passive holding of a domain name could be bad faith when Complainant's mark has a strong reputation and Respondent has

recognized that inaction e.g passive holding in relation to a domain name registration can in certain circumstances constitute a domain name being used in bad faith Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 In the

name and so finds so-called passive holding and use in bad faith in line with the reasoning first laid out in the case of Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The Complainant has accordingly satisfied the

domain name constitutes a passive holding in bad faith B Respondent A summary of the Respondent �s contentions is as follows The rights claimed in the domain name by the Complainant are not valid First the use of the domain name riojawine.com