for registering and holding the disputed domain name other than to exploit the Complainant �s trademark the Panel finds that there are enough indications in the present case to support an inference of bad faith under the passive holding

The Panel agrees that the passive holding of a domain name does not necessarily circumvent a finding that the domain name is being used in bad faith within the requirements of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy See Telstra Corporation Limited v

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 As such the Panel holds that

Complainant points out that passive holding can in any case be consistent with a finding of bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant �s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings A Identical or Confusingly Similar The

justify the equation of passive holding and active use because the Complainant �s Trademark is well-known the Respondent had provided no evidence whatsoever of any actual or contemplated good faith use and the combination of the words �Bayer

to an inactive website The passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith See section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions Third Edition �WIPO Overview 3.0 � In the absence

actively used but are merely passively held does not prevent a finding of bad faith use under the Policy since such passive holding of the disputed domain names is tantamount to active use for the following reasons i The Complainant �s BAYER mark

prompted finding of bad faith passive holding and pattern of conduct The Panel concludes that other circumstances of the present case indicate that Respondent made an attempt to sell the domain While Respondent asserts that if Complainant truly

Shipping Company Holding SA Authorized Representative Organization BrandIT GmbH Respondent Name JInsoo Yoon Other Legal Proceedings The Panel is not aware of any other pending or decided legal proceedings relating to the disputed

the Complainant The current passive holding of the disputed domain name in the context of typosquatting does not prevent a finding of bad faith registration and use   NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED Rights The Complainant

and are not being used passively holding of a domain name represents bad faith use where in cases like this the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant �s trademarks and the Respondent has made no use of the disputed

domain name followed by a passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes use in bad faith Complainant indicates Respondent s domain name resolves to a blank or inactive page See Compl Ex C The Panel agrees that the passive holding of a

WIPO Overview 3.0 considers passive holding by the Respondent and explains that �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

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 Complainant �s website evanwilliamsdugout.com is a specifically

disputed domain name and the passive holding does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services nor to a non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name under the Policy Moreover Respondent is not an authorised agent licensee or

is perceived as an act of passive holding which prevents the Complainant from registering the domain name under his rightfully owned trademark This passive holding prevents the trademarks owner from using the rights conferred by his marks In

the disputed domain name a passive holding in bad faith as explained in section 3.3 of WIPO Overview 3.0 Finally the Panel will deal with the other arguments put forward by the Respondent 1 The fact that the Respondent is using �T20GL � in

as the Respondent �s current passive holding of the disputed domain name and the use of a privacy services is further evidence of bad faith use see in particular Singapore Pools Private Limited v Le Thi Xuan WIPO Case No D2017-0518 Based on 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

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