is inactive at present such passive holding can also constitute bad faith See Credit Industriel et Commercial S.A v Zabor Mok WIPO Case No D2015-1432 The Complainant also notes that at the time this Complaint was first drafted the Respondent was

trademark Finally inactive or passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name by the Respondent may amount to bad faith use See Advance Magazine Publishers Inc and Les Publications Condé Nast S.A v ChinaVogue.com WIPO Case No D2005-0615 Société pour

faith under the doctrine of passive holding Based on the evidence presented to the Panel including the registration of the disputed domain name long after the registration of the Complainant �s marks the confusing similarity between the disputed

well-known trademarks the passive holding clearly shows the Respondent �s bad faith The Complainant therefore relies on the decision Jupiters Limited v Aaron Hall WIPO Case No D2000 �'0574 in which the panel found that the reservation of domain

in many UDRP cases that passive holding under the appropriate circumstances falls within the concept of the domain name being used in bad faith The Complainant asserts also that the lack of use of the Disputed Domain Name which is

Panels have held that the passive holding of domain names does not establish legitimate interests or bona fide use of a domain name See Microsoft Corporation v Charilaos Chrisochoou WIPO Case No D2004-0186 It is difficult to conceive of any use

concluding that 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

relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant mark ii the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated

PANEL DECISION DPH Holdings LLC v Josh Brody Case No D2017-2462 1 The Parties The Complainant is DPH Holdings LLC of Indianapolis Indiana United States of America �United States � represented by Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP United

reasoning the Panel so finds passive holding in bad faith DECISION Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED Accordingly it is Ordered that the solartrubines.com and

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 cases in which i the Complainant has a well-known trademark

even in 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

Overview 3.0 � section 3.3 passive holding Complainant has failed to satisfy paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy Given the fact that Complainant does have a registered trademark in Uganda whether it is bona fide or otherwise the Panel denies

the disputed domain name passive holding Previous Panelists recognised that passive holding of a domain name can in certain circumstances constitute use in bad faith see Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No

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

and is currently a form of passive holding While passive holding of domain names does not always result in a finding of bad faith use the Panel considers that in the circumstances such a finding is appropriate for the following reasons It is

to an inactive webpage Passive holding of a disputed domain name incorporating a third-party well-known mark does not normally amount to a bona fide use It is well established that inaction or passive holding can in certain circumstances

faith under the doctrine of passive holding see section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions Third Edition WIPO Overview 3.0 Furthermore the Complainant has to the Panel satisfaction proved a worldwide

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

related domain names and the passive holding of the disputed domain name the Panel has no hesitation in concluding the requisite element of bad faith has been made out The Panel considers it is inconceivable the Respondent was not aware of the