contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith see WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.0 and inter alia Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and HUGO BOSS Trade Mark

traffic Furthermore there's passive holding of the disputed domain name and an active email server is set-up in connection with the disputed domain name which may indicate phishing activities by the Respondent It is therefore believed that the

Bid Industrial Holdings Proprietary Limited v ZhangPeng / Zhang Peng Claim Number FA1708001743105 PARTIES Complainant is Bid Industrial Holdings Proprietary Limited Complainant represented by Daniel Greenberg of Lexsynergy Limited United

domain name amounts to passive holding within the meaning of bad faith use under the Policy Accordingly the third element of the Policy is met Lastly the Panel notes that in an email dated June 27 2017 sent to Complainant's IP counsel the

faith under the doctrine of passive holding In cases of passive holding UDRP panelists look at the totality of the circumstances including factors such as i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant s mark ii the failure of

resolves to the Registrar s holding page Whilst the decision in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 may be authority for the proposition that passive holding of a disputed domain name may in some

contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith see WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.0 and inter alia Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and HUGO BOSS Trade Mark

recognizes that inaction e.g passive holding in relation to a domain name registration can in certain circumstances constitute a domain name being used in bad faith Given the evidence of the Complainant s prior rights on the LA BANQUE POSTALE mark

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 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

argues that Respondent simply passively holds the disputed domain name Passively holding a domain name by not making an active use of that domain name can provide evidence of bad faith under Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See VideoLink Inc v Xantech

to an inactive website The passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith See section3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 For all the above reasons the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the

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 as it happens in the current case The Complainant also contends that the inaction in relation to a

bad faith Finally inactive or passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name by the Respondent may amount to bad faith use See AdvanceMagazinePublishersInc andLesPublicationsCondéNastS.A vChinaVogue.com WIPO Case No D2005-0615 Sociétépourl

faith under the doctrine of passive holding It depends on the facts of the case and relevant factors include i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant s mark ii the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to

registered and is engaged in passive holding of the domain name As contended by Complainant t he only possible explanation for Respondent s registration of the Domain Name is that it was registered by Respondent to take advantage of the goodwill

considers an instance of passive holding As many UDRP panels indicted in numerous prior UDRP decisions the fact that a domain name is held passively does not prevent a finding of bad faith Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria S.A v Victor Edet Okon

active and this is a clear passive holding The fact that is not active is not a justification of the unfair diversion of internet surfers On 29 May 2017 the Complainant sent a warning letter requesting the transfer of the contested domain name

clear in UDRP decisions that passive holding can constitute use in bad faith especially where a Panel cannot realistically identify a situation where use would be in good faith see WIPO Jurisprudential Overview para 3.2 including its summary of

faith under the doctrine of passive holding For the above reasons the Panel finds that the condition of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy has been satisfied i.e the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith 7 Decision