the panel found that the passive holding of a domain name without any obvious purpose does not necessarily circumvent a finding that the domain name is being used for the purpose of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy In addition section 3.3 of

that the respondent s passive holding of the domain name satisfies the requirement of Paragraph4 a iii of the Policy See also Clerical Med Inv Group Ltd v Clericalmedical.com D2000-1228 WIPO Nov 28 2000 finding that merely holding an

previous UDRP panels is that passive holding in itself does not preclude a finding of bad faith and all the circumstances herein indicate to the Panel that the Respondent is acting in bad faith in registering and using moubootsblog.com and

in certain circumstances the passive holding of a domain name may be evidence of bad faith The Panel concludes in these circumstances that the Respondent �s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitute bad faith and that the

on May 21 2015 and that this passive holding cannot be considered a bona fide offering of goods and services nor legitimate noncommercial or fair use The Complainant concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the

Charter Communications Holding Company v Jahanzeb Ishaq Claim Number FA1803001775734 PARTIES Complainant is Charter Communications Holding Company Complainant represented by Madelon Lapidus of Holland & Hart LLP Colorado USA Respondent is

HY IP Holding Company LLC v Living Group LLC Limited Liability Company Claim Number FA1803001774694 PARTIES Complainant is HY IP Holding Company LLC Complainant represented by Susan J Kohlmann of Jenner & Block New York USA Respondent is

that the Respondent keep it passively to the detriment of the legitimate holder being aware that such passive holding prevents the rightful holder of the corresponding brand to use it as domain name WIPO case No D2001-0631 Laboratorios Recalcine

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 Combined

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

activities that in any event passive holding of a domain name qualifies as use in bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not respond to the Complainant �s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 4 a of the Policy in order

Accordingly the Respondent �s passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name betokens bad faith registration and use 7 Decision For the foregoing reasons in accordance with paragraphs 4 i of the Policy and 15 of the Rules the Panel orders that the

now well established that the passive holding of a domain name in the absence of a right or legitimate interest in it qualifies as use in bad faith under the Policy Telstra Corporation v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The large number

faith under the doctrine of passive holding The panel must examine all the circumstances of the case to determine whether the respondent is acting in bad faith Examples of what may be relevant circumstances found to be indicative of bad faith

that even the current passive holding of the disputed domain name does not precluded a bad faith finding for example at least because it prevents Complainant from using the KERASTASE Trademarks in the same manner B Respondent Respondent did

faith under the doctrine of passive holding The panel must examine all the circumstances of the case to determine whether the Respondent is acting in bad faith Examples of what may be relevant circumstances found to be indicative of bad faith

faith under the doctrine of passive holding � In similar situations UDRP panelists look into the totality of circumstances in a specific case including the following � i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant �s mark ii

name is not actively used passive holding of domain name In view of all of the above the Panel considers that the lack of response to the cease and desist letters of January 24 2018 and to this Complaint see Carrefour v Jan Everno The

the latter is presently only passive use and holding Conversely there is here no indicia or factor which suggests any past or prospective good faith or legitimate use of the disputed domain names For all these reasons the Panel rules that the

the Respondent �s passive holding of the disputed domain name in bad faith is indicative of bad faith use This Panel therefore finds that on the balance of probabilities the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad