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 the

contact the trade mark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith as it it acknowldged by WIPO Panels See Dr Martens International Trading GmbH and Dr Maertens Marketing GmbH v Godaddy.com Inc Case No D2017-0246 with

Complainant submits that the passive holding doctrine can be applied to this case pursuant to section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions Third Edition WIPO Overview 3.0 because there is a high degree of

de la tenencia pasiva o passive holding Esta doctrina entiende que es especialmente importante cuando la marca tiene gran valor reputacional y la Demandada no aporta respuesta que explique el uso de buena fe Con todo lo anterior entiende la

case the Panel held that the passive holding of the domain name by the r espondent that is to say registering a domain name but not actually doing anything with it could in some circumstances amount to registration and use in bad faith The

from the Respondent 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

this does not amount to passive holding of the domain name because on the evidence adduced by the Complainant the disputed domain name is being used as an email address The Complainant has adduced evidence that the disputed domain name is

be false However the Telstra holding does not turn on the use of false contact information rather the central holding of that case is that passive holding of a domain name which incorporates a well-known mark can itself suffice to establish bad

undeveloped parked web page 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 WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions Third Edition WIPO Overview 3.0 Section 3.3 Since there is no proof that the Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in the

names and Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain names in bad faith and any active use of them could only be in bad faith B Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant's contentions 6 Discussion and Findings Pursuant to

Further Respondent s passive holding of the domain names is evidence of bad faith Finally it is clear Respondent knew of Complainant s DELL marks and Complainant s rights therein at the time it registered and subsequently used the domain

an inactive website non use / passive holding with the following sentence in Polish Strona www niedostępna which translates in English as website not available The Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent

still pointing to a registrar holding page 16 years later and underlined that previous panels had found passive holding to equate to a lack of legitimate interest The Complainant noted that the Respondent had previously been involved in the sale of

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

a registration in bad faith Passive holding of the disputed domain name by the Respondent indicates that Respondent intends to derive profit from the Complainant's reputation The disputed domain name used to resolve to a website displaying

contact the trademark holder passive holding does not prevent a finding of bad faith Finally the Complainant argues that on the website to which the disputed domain name resolves there is a search button titled 1XBET.Portugal Casa de Apostas

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

Complainant argues the passive holding of a disputed domain name without any business or services being provided does not prevent a finding of bad faith to take advantage of the reputation of Complainant See Junipers Limited v Aaron Hall

trademark and subsequent passive holding of such a domain thus preventing the trademark holder from registering such a domain is viewed by the Examiner as bad faith The Respondent has not submitted any evidences confirming circumstances listed