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

is worth remembering that 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 requests that the disputed domain name bpce-natixis.com

domain name was registered Passive holding does not exclude a finding of bad faith use The Respondent has previously been found to have registered domain names in bad faith in at least five proceedings under the Policy involving 17 domain names

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 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

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 requested the Registrar to cancel the disputed domain name only

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

active website i.e has been passively held As established in a number of prior cases the concept of bad faith use in paragraph 4 b of the Policy includes not only positive action but also passive holding especially in cases of domain name

this is a clear case of passive holding and makes it clear that the Respondent had no right to register the domain name and has no right or legitimate interest in the domain name These facts and circumstances give rise to the prima facie case

that when considering whether passive holding of a domain name constitutes bad faith the Administrative Panel must give close attention to all the circumstances of the Respondent s behavior Here Respondent s actions of impersonating Complainant

previous UDRP panels is that passive holding in itself does not preclude a finding of bad faith The panel must examine all the circumstances of the case to determine whether a respondent is acting in bad faith See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views

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 the

has acquired and is passively holding the Disputed Domain Name long after the Complainant s adoption use and registration of its MASTERCARD trademarks The Complainant submits that the Respondent had constructive and actual notice of the

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 the

indication of bad faith The passive holding of the disputed domain names does not mean that there is no bad faith registration and use B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings 6.1

it is well established that passive holding i.e the incorporation of a famous trademark into a domain name coupled with an inactive website may be evidence of bad faith registration and use RESPONDENT No administratively compliant Response has

it appropriate to apply the passive holding doctrine even before the Respondent has fully realized its stated plans for the 28 Domain Names indeed it would take a mere modicum of effort e.g to redirect those domain names to Mr Eccleston's site to

it is well established that passive holding i.e the incorporation of a famous trademark into a domain name coupled with an inactive website may be evidence of bad faith registration and use RESPONDENT No administratively compliant Response has

faith under the doctrine of passive holding see Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Jupiters Limited v Aaron Hall WIPO Case No D2000-0574 Reviewing the totality of the circumstances in this case including

wikipeadia.com Bestway Holdings Ltd v Bkarato AK Bkarato WIPO Case No D2012-2485 bestwaygroup.com The disputed domain name is currently not in use UDRP panels have long found that the non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of