name resolves Respondent is passively holding a domain name containing Complainant s GROUPON mark Passive holding of a domain name does not constitute a bona fide or legitimate use See Standard Life Employee Services Limited v Shen Zhong Chao

that according to which passive holding does not preclude a finding of bad faith Finally the Complainant would like to point out the fact that as a banking group it has to continuously face counterfeiting or phishing attempts B Respondent The

to an active website The passive holding of a disputed domain name that incorporates a distinctive and widely known trademark belonging to a third party generally supports a finding of bad faith The Respondent s failure to provide any evidence

Complainant suggests that the passive holding of the domain name is bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name because the KENNETH COLE trademark is famous and well-known That may be but Complainant has failed to support its bald

when registering and holding the four Domain Names that have not yet resolved to active websites In any event the passive holding of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith see Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear

disputed domain name is in passive holding parking page It is used to display several commercial links The Complainant states that the Respondent is not affiliated with him nor authorized by him in any way and has no right nor legitimate

and assert that Respondent is passively holding the domain name with no legitimate noncommercial or fair use Complainants state further that they have not licensed Respondent to use the GUESS mark that Respondent has no legal relationship with

of the proposition that passive holding of disputed domain names can amount to bad faith under the third UDRP element 5.A.7 Third the Complainant accuses the Respondent of cybersquatting based on the fact that in addition to the eight

faith In the circumstances passive holding of the disputed domain name is further evidence of the Respondent s bad faith For the above reasons the Panel finds that the condition of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy has been satisfied i.e the

web or email traffic Such passive holding of a domain name incorporating a well-known mark has been considered by many past UDRP panels Bad faith registration and use of a domain name by passive holding has been recognized by past UDRP panels

commercial gain Further the passive holding of the disputed domain name if asserted by the Respondent would not preclude a finding of bad faith in the attendant circumstances of this case As set forth in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear

web or email traffic Such passive holding of a domain name incorporating a well-known mark has been considered by many past UDRP panels Bad faith registration and use of a domain name by passive holding has been recognized by past UDRP panels

Complainant submits that passive ownership of the disputed domain name which is confusingly similar to its common law trademark is evidence of bad faith under the Policy Furthermore the rejection by Respondent of Complainant's offer to

be met under the doctrine of passive holding giving close attention to all circumstances of the Respondent behavior see Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 Factors that have

from June 8 2017 and the passive holding of the disputed domain name at the time of this Decision c a clear absence of rights or legitimate interests coupled with no explanation for the Respondent's choice of the domain name as noted in the

by the Respondent's passive holding of the disputed domain name The Complainant maintains that the Respondent's demand that Honda agree to a negotiated price for the transfer of the disputed domain name and counteroffer of no less than

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 see Dr Martens International Trading

with sponsored links as passive holding or non-use of a domain name this would not shield a respondent from a finding of bad faith See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions Third Edition WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3

the disputed domain name The passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith The fact that the disputed domain name is offered for sale shows bad faith use and registration The Respondent has registered domain

and services maintaining a passive holding of the disputed domain name However although no content is shown in the website the Complainant claims that the Respondent has been sending scam emails using the email service associated with the