Domain Name for a web site is passive use which can also amount to bad faith Registering a Domain Name suggesting a connection with a complainant where there is none is also evidence of bad faith B Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response

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

Names in 2012 Respondent is passively holding discovrpersonalloans.com and is using the other two domains to resolve to sites featuring pay per click advertisements Respondent has a long history of cybersquatting and Complainant previously won a

contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith 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 cumulative

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

under the Policy that passive holding in such circumstances amounts to use in bad faith The Complainant submits that the leading case in this regard is Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 in which it

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

under the Policy that passive holding in such circumstances amounts to use in bad faith The Complainant submits that the leading case in this regard is Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No 2000-0003 in which it

other three or would continue passively holding the two names as he is now doing In either situation he would effectively prevent the Complainant from registering both of those names and thereby reflecting the Complainant s marks in corresponding

and the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name the Panel draws the inference that on balance the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith In the recent case involving the same Complainant

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 WIPO Case No D2000-0003 As such the Panel holds that 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

active website and are only passively held However passive holding of domain names does not preclude a finding of bad faith see Telstra Corporation Ltd v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Moreover in the present dispute the disputed

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

is analogous to non-use or passive holding which does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name The Respondent s registration and use of the disputed domain name is

bad faith They say that the passive holding of the Disputed Domain Names and the linking of those domain names to pages with click through links is itself evidence of bad faith They also say that in any event it is likely the Respondent intends

domain name is identical i.e passive holding the Panel will allow the consolidation Complainants should not however expect a panel to consider multiple factual scenarios e.g different website uses relating to different complainants in a single

is owned by Nexperian Holding Limited and the disputed domain name wwwmyctca.xyz is owned by Leed Johnny the Respondent Nexperian Holding Limited appears as the Administrative Contact and both disputed domain names iii The Registrants of

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

Domain Name is not active the passive holding of a disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith where the domain name has been registered and is used to take advantage of the reputation of the Complainant The Complainant thus