relate to a former registrant passive holding or non-use of a domain name supports a finding of bad faith see WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 The Complainant trademark has a certain degree of distinctiveness and reputation in its line of business 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

It is well-established that passive holding does not prevent a finding of bad faith In particular in Intel Corporation v The Pentium Group WIPO Case No D2009-0273 and in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003

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 Moreover the disputed domain name was previously parked and listed for sale Under the

relate to a former registrant passive holding or non-use of a domain name supports a finding of bad faith see WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 The Complainant trademark has a certain degree of distinctiveness and reputation in its line of business The

Domain Name is inactive The passive holding of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith The Complainant holds numerous registrations for the CORDON BLEU Trade Marks worldwide It is also widely known by its trade marks which have a

Domain Name fr-costo.com Passive holding of a domain name is not an obstacle to a finding of bad faith In the present case it rather is a clue for bad faith use as email addresses were used with false identities and to divert customers or

previous UDRP panels is that passive holding in itself does not preclude a finding of bad faith Based on the available record the Panel cannot conceive of any use by the Respondent of the disputed domain name that would not be a bad faith use Some

factors when applying the passive holding doctrine the degree of distinctiveness and/or reputation of the Complainant s trademark the failure of the Respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good faith

is now accepted to include passive holding in certain circumstances based on the line of authority proceeding from the Telstra case above This case is authority for the proposition that passive holding may be bad faith use where 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

Complainant insists that even passively holding the disputed domain names that contain the Complainant �s trade name and the inactive websites demonstrate the Respondent �s unauthorized registration of the disputed domain names in bad faith The

has rights Based on the passive use made of the Disputed Domain Name the Panel finds that the Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services nor making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name

is established by Respondent passive holding of the disputed domain name B Respondent Respondent rejects all of Complainant contentions and maintains that it registered the disputed domain name at the request of a colleague by the name of Edward

use in bad faith by reason of passive holding and the logic first laid out in the case of Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the third and final element of the

contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith Examples of what may be cumulative circumstances found to be indicative of bad faith include not exhaustive no response to the complaint having been filed

wishes to remind that such passive holding does not prevent a finding of bad faith since according to prior UDRP panel decisions the panel must examine all the circumstances of the case to determine whether the respondent is acting in bad faith

dans la mesure où le passive holding est également constitutif d'un comportement de mauvaise foi B Défendeur Le Défendeur n'a pas répondu aux arguments du Requérant 6 Discussion et conclusions 6.1 Langue de la procédure Selon le

section 3.3 In the case of a passive holding the following factors are relevant to a determination of bad faith � i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant �s mark ii the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to

of the contention that mere passive holding does not provide a right or legitimate interest 5.4 So far as bad faith registration and use of the Domain Name is concerned the Complainant claims that it is inconceivable that the Respondent was not