content Respondent's passive holding of the at-issue domain name shows neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4 c i nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4 c iii See Dell Inc v link growth /

faith under the doctrine of passive holding The totality of the circumstances in each case will be examined and factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include i the degree of distinctiveness or

de um nome de domínio passive holding pode indicar má-fé Contudo para tanto essa posse passiva necessariamente deve vir acompanhada de outros elementos ou padrões de conduta que legitimem a conclusão pela má-fé o que não ocorreu no

faith under the doctrine of passive holding WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 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

3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 passive holding of a disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith and in this context the Panel notes that the Respondent has provided false contact details and false underlying registrant information

faith under the doctrine of passive holding The factors that are typically considered when 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

faith under the doctrine of passive holding as stated i.e in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 Indeed in view of the Respondent s registration of a domain name

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

as it is commonly agreed that passive holding does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain names The burden of proof has been shifted to the Respondent to prove

in finding bad faith in the passive holding 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 provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use

faith under the doctrine of passive holding The Panel agrees with this view and finds that the circumstance of past bad faith use by the Respondent makes it implausible that the disputed domain name will be put to any good faith use in the future

regard the Panel finds that holding a domain name passively without making any use of it also does not confer any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name on the Respondent see in this regard earlier UDRP decisions such as

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

s BOURSORAMA trademark Passively holding a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 This includes domain names that do not resolve to any website content Where a domain name is being passively held as

faith under the doctrine of passive holding section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 Therefore the third element of paragraph 4 a of the Policy is satisfied in the present case 7 Decision For the foregoing reasons in accordance with paragraphs 4 i of

to an inactive web site.  Passive holding of a domain name is also evidence of bad faith.  Given the non-exclusive nature of Policy ¶ 4 b failure to make active use of a confusingly similar domain name is also evidence of bad faith  Caravan

faith under the doctrine of passive holding when circumstances exist such as the distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant s mark the failure of the respondent to submit a formal response or to provide any evidence of actual 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

faith under the doctrine of passive holding Section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 states that relevant factors to finding bad faith in passive holding include i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant s mark ii the failure

Internet users The current passive holding of the disputed domain name does not absolve the Respondent of bad faith registration and use and in fact under the circumstances of this case supports a finding of bad faith registration and use See