faith under the doctrine of passive holding considering the circumstances of this case See WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 Accordingly the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith pursuant to paragraph

active use of the domain name 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

decisions confirm that the passive holding of a domain name with knowledge that the domain name infringes another party s trademark rights is evidence of bad faith registration and use see in this regard Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear

content which constitutes passive holding Registration and passive holding of a domain name which has no other legitimate use and clearly refers to the Complainant's trademark may constitute registration and use in bad faith Complainant has

relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant's mark ii the failure of the respondent to to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use and iv the

domain name constitutes a passive holding in bad faith as the disputed domain name comprises a widely known trade mark and there is no response or explanation as to how it could be used in good faith The Registrant has engaged in a pattern of

are indicative of passive holding in bad faith as explained in section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 i the distinctiveness and fame of the Complainant s mark ii the failure of the Respondent to submit a formal response or to provide any

lacking content amounts to passive holding Complainant also provides evidence of its communications with Respondent and how while initially agreeing to transfer the domain name Respondent finally decided not to B Respondent Given that the

sites The Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain names does not preclude a finding of bad faith WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 The relevant factors here are i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant s mark

Name Finally inactive or passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name by the Respondent does not prevent a finding of bad faith See Advance Magazine Publishers Inc and Les Publications Condé Nast S.A v ChinaVogue.com WIPO Case No D2005-0615

circumstances of the case the passive holding of the disputed domain names would not prevent a finding of bad faith registration and use see WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 The passive holding of the disputed domain names would not prevent a finding

disputed domain name is being passively held c the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and d Given the passive holding of the disputed domain name the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the

faith under the doctrine of passive holding In this regard different factors have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine including the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant s mark and the

  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

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

is now engaged in bad faith passive holding and 6 Respondent s use of a privacy service reinforces its bad faith intent Complainant requests the Panel to direct the Registrar to transfer the disputed domain name to Complainant B Respondent

submits that by its passive holding the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith v The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the

that this amounts to a passive holding of the disputed domain name in bad faith Factors that previous panels have found as relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine and which are set out at section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO

notes in this connection that passive holding of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith use under paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy Procedural Factors The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and

trademark and subsequent passive holding of such a domain is viewed by the Examiner as bad faith The Registrant has not submitted any evidences confirming circumstances listed in URS Procedure 5.7 In the absence of any defense which might have