as evidencing bad faith by passive holding a The Complainants have a well-known and highly distinctive Trademark It is inconceivable that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name independently of the Trademark the disputed domain name

DECISION Mubadala Trade Marks Holding Company LLC & Mubadala Investment Company PJSC v Euro Equity W.L.L Case No D2018-0110 1 The Parties The Complainant is Mubadala Trade Marks Holding Company LLC & Mubadala Investment Company PJSC of Abu Dhabi

before a scenario of passive holding which is considered a sign of bad faith in many UDRP decisions Furthermore the Respondent did not respond to the Complainant cease-and-desist letter nor has the Respondent provided a Response to 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 While panellists 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

� which may be deemed as passive holding absent any offer of products or services or any information on any topic Several UDRP decisions have held that the passive holding of a domain name that incorporates a well-known trademark without

website A two-month period of passive holding in and of itself may generally be too short to constitute bad faith use However other relevant factors apart from just a short period of passive holding are present here which when all facts are viewed

cases of so-called �passive holding � as found in the landmark UDRP decision Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 In the circumstances of this case the Panel finds that such passive holding amounts to bad

faith under the doctrine of passive holding see WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 Accordingly having regard to the circumstances of this particular case the Panel finds that the Complainants have met their burden under paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy

The Complainant claims that passive holding of the Domain Name does not preclude finding of bad faith use The Complainant argues that reproducing a famous trademark in a domain name in order to attract Internet users to an inactive website cannot

with the other evidence iii Passive holding The Telstra warehousing or passive holding doctrine does not apply in the factual circumstances of this case The mark in Telstra was found by the panel to be nationally famous in Australia the location

faith under the doctrine of passive holding As stated in section 3.3 of WIPO Overview 3.0 panelists look at the totality of the circumstances in each case Factors considered relevant include i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the

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

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 that no response to the complaint has been filed and the

circumstances under which the passive holding of a domain will be considered to be a bad faith registration �While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case factors that have been considered relevant in applying the

constitutes bad faith use as passive holding and establish that such a passive use of the disputed domain name is also revealing that the Respondent has no serious intent to use it for offering goods and services or promoting a noncommercial cause

The Complainant claims that passive holding of the Domain Name does not amount to its good faith use The Complainant further argues that reproducing a famous trademark in a domain name in order to attract Internet users to an inactive website

recognizes 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 There

have confirmed that the passive holding of a domain name coupled with other circumstances indicative of bad faith registration and use would suffice to establish the third element under the Policy see in this regard Telstra Corporation

that this case is one of passive holding and so the test for bad faith could be satisfied on this basis In cases of this type a Panel cannot realistically identify a situation where use would be in good faith see WIPO Jurisprudential Overview