the disputed domain names as passive holding qualifying as use in bad faith Most of all the Complainant has demonstrated that the Respondents were involved in phishing activities Through a fraudulent email displaying a domain name

it is well established that passive holding of a domain name could amount to bad faith under certain circumstances as decided i.a in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 In the case at hand in view of i the

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

KT Intellectual Property Holding Company LLC v Henry Findstein SPB Resource & Asset Management Group Case No D2017-2047 1 The Parties The Complainant is KT Intellectual Property Holding Company LLC of Irvine California United States of America

faith under the doctrine of passive holding See section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 In this case the fact that the disputed domain name has been used to resolve to a copy of the Complainant main website likely to phish Internet users leads the

faith under the doctrine of passive holding See section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 In this case the fact that the disputed domain name has been used to resolve to a copy of the Complainant main website likely to phish Internet users leads the

is well-established that the passive holding of domain names registered and retained for the purpose of resale to the Complainant or a competitor of the Complainant at a profit constitutes a use of them in bad faith within the meaning of the UDRP

where the case concerned the passive holding of a domain name See also Cornell Trading Inc v Web-Interactive.com Inc WIPO Case No D2000-0887 the Respondent's passive holding of the domain name together with the similar holding of a large number of

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

held that inaction/passive holding can in certain circumstances constitute bad faith and in this respect the Complainant cited the relevant decisions of UDRP panels the disputed domain name initially redirected to an active website This was not

for the Complainant A mere passive holding of a domain name can still amount to bad faith registration and use where a respondent has incorporated another �s well-known and distinctive trademark into a domain name without explanation or

Domain Name has not been used Passive holding of a domain name can be registration and use in bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant �s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings A Identical and/or Confusingly Similar The

case The lack of active use passive holding of the Domain Name does not prevent a finding of bad faith Given the distinctiveness uniqueness and fame of the XEROX trademark and trade name together with its global presence there can be no

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

PANEL DECISION Cheyne Capital Holdings Limited v Nexperian Holding Limited / Lu Huang Ping Case No D2017-2062 1 The Parties The Complainant is Cheyne Capital Holdings Limited of British Virgin Islands Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom of

contrary the Respondent �s passive holding of the Domain Name the Domain Name resolves to an inactive error page demonstrates a lack of legitimate interest in the Domain Name As to bad faith the Complainant argues that the Respondent was aware

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

concludes that the present passive holding of the disputed domain names constitutes a bad faith use putting emphasis on the following the Complainant �s trademarks are famous worldwide with strong reputation and are well-known globally the

be or is claimed to be help passively without any evident usage or purpose � Telstra Corporations Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 concluding that the respondent �s passive holding of the disputed domain name satisfied the

4 b iv Respondent s current passive holding of the disputed domain name is further evidence of the requisite bad faith especially given his offer to sell the domain name to Complainant upon Complainant s meeting of the asking price DECISION