Complainant The concept of passive holding may apply even in the event of sporadic use or of the mere parking of a domain name The confusingly similar nature of the disputed domain names to the Complainant's trademarks the lack of any

it should be noted that passive holding does not preclude a finding of bad faith The Respondent has not offered an explanation as to why the Domain Name was chosen There is no apparent legitimate reason for the use of the Domain Name As a

found that the concept of passive holding may apply even in the event of sporadic use or of the mere parking by a third party of a domain name In the WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmellows the Panel

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

tipico comportamento definito passive holding o domain parking che costituisce anch esso un indice di malafede Infatti la semplice detenzione di un nome a dominio che corrisponde all altrui segno distintivo senza la sua utilizzazione porta alla

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 14 One of the factors applied to passive holding doctrine is the implausibility of any good faith use to which the domain name may be put 15 Here the previous bad faith use of the Domain Name and lack

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

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

used in conjunction with a passive holding page that states website coming soon whilst the remaining domain names resolve to a page with a DNS error Complainant states that disputed domain names are nearly identical and confusingly similar to

faith under the doctrine of passive holding see Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows supra Jupiters Limited v Aaron Hall WIPO Case No D2000-0574 The Complainant has submitted evidence which shows that the registration of the

and the contested domain name passive holding under the appropriate circumstances falls within the concept of the domain name being used in bad faith the Respondent did not deign to answer to Complainant s cease and desist letter by email in which

Arena that the Respondent �s passive holding of it suggests opportunistic bad faith The Complainant also points out that the Respondent has used a privacy service to conceal his identity The Complainant says that the registrant details revealed

In the Complainant's view passive holding may apply even in the event of sporadic use or of the mere parking by a third party of a domain name as it happens in the current case 12 The Complainant also notes that the Respondent registered three

it is well established that passive holding of a domain name can amount to bad faith in certain circumstances The Complainant asserts that the conduct of the Respondents in registering domain names of confusing similarity to the Complainant s MIU

on the part of Respondent Passive holding of a Domain Name can constitute bad faith use and registration under the Policy There is no good reason why Respondent has registered the Domain Name and it must be intending to cause confusion on 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 see section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 Taking into consideration other factors such as the failure of the Respondent to submit a Response and the implausibility of any good faith use to which the

Domain Name is not active the passive holding of a disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith in order to take advantage of the reputation of the Complainant The Complainant thus reminds the Panel of the decision Jupiters Limited

registered in 2017 is being passively held Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain name Complainant has not authorised Respondent to use its mark Passive holding is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a