such as the present case the passive holding and general offer for sale of the disputed domain name is sufficient evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to 4 a iii of the Policy Although the circumstances listed in paragraph 4 b are

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

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 Complaint has accordingly satisfied the third

seems to be an instance of passive holding However the Panel remarks that from the verification report submitted by the registrar of the disputed domain name there is an active DNS server associated with the name and it might thus be used for

be or is claimed to be held passively without any evident usage or purpose and previous panels have already considered that passive holding of a disputed domain name can satisfy the requirements of paragraph 4 a iii and in such cases the Panel

such as the present case the passive holding of the disputed domain name is sufficient evidence of bad faith Although the circumstances listed in paragraph 4 b are all phrased in terms of affirmative actions by the Respondent it is by now well

�被投诉人被动持有 passive holding � � 争议域名 novotel.fun novotel.link novotel.store �'� novotel.work 指向� �子竞� 服务� � 现在，� 有争议域名指向的网站均刊登� 被投诉人的� 辩状� � 5 �

such as the present case the passive holding and general offer for sale of the disputed domain name is sufficient evidence of bad faith Although the circumstances listed in paragraph 4 b are all phrased in terms of affirmative actions by the

� personal profit The current passive holding of the disputed domain names does not preclude a finding of bad faith use B Respondents The Respondents did not reply to the Complainants � contentions 6 Discussion and Findings 6.1 Language of the

faith under the doctrine of passive holding � Section 3.3 WIPO Overview 3.0 The WIPO Overview 3.0 further states �While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case factors that have been considered relevant in applying

at the disputed domain name Passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent the Panel from finding registration and use in bad faith The Panel further notes that the undeveloped use of the website at the disputed domain name which

circumstances in each case of passive holding and that the following factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant mark ii the failure of the

domain name in bad faith by passively holding the disputed domain name which incorporates the famous mark CARREFOUR That the Complainant sent a cease and desist letter to the Respondent on November 30 2017 and that the Respondent did not answer

Complainant submits that by holding passively the disputed domain name the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith v The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant B Respondent The

have established that the passive holding of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith The Panel finds that the previous use of the Domain Names as described under the Factual Background and the Complainant �s Contentions is also

finds that the Respondent �s passive holding and the surrounding circumstances also establish use of the disputed domain name in bad faith see e.g Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The Panel therefore finds

of a parent or of a holding company or an exclusive trademark licensee is considered to have rights in a trademark under the UDRP for purposes of standing to file a complaint The trademark AUDI is wholly encompassed within the disputed

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 Further the disputed domain name has been offered for sale for an

Compl Ex J Furthermore the passive holding of the disputed domain name td-onlineupdate.com supports a finding of bad faith registration as the domain resolves to an inactive site and is not being used Finally as the td-onlineupdate.com domain

Complaint the Respondent �s passive holding of the Domain Name under the totality of the circumstances amounts to use of the Domain Name in bad faith The Panel finds that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith 7 Decision