Finally the extended passive holding of the disputed domain name supports a finding of bad faith registration and use Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and Tommy Bahama Group Inc v Domains by Proxy

Complainant s future rights Passive holding does not preclude a finding of bad faith Reproducing the Complainant s STANDARD ABERDEEN and ABERDEEN STANDARD trademarks in a domain name to attract Internet users to an inactive website cannot be

The Respondent Nexperian Holding Limited has been subject to previous domain name disputes SUUNTO OY v duan xiaosong duan xiao song / Nexperian Holding Limited WIPO Case No D2017-0670 Van Cleef & Arpels S.A v Neperian Holding Limited WIPO Case

The Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain names does not prevent a finding of bad faith use under the totality of the present circumstances Cumulative circumstances evidencing bad faith in this case include the fact that

It is well established that passive holding or non-use of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding see WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 It is highly unlikely that the disputed domain names are

domain name Evidence of passive holding of a domain name has been held under some circumstances to constitute use in bad faith see Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows supra The Respondent's passive holding of the disputed

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

that in certain circumstances passive holding of a confusingly similar domain name can amount to bad faith use under the Policy Complainant then states that Respondent had constructive notice of Complainant s trademark rights by reason of its USPTO

finds that the Respondent's passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith use For the above-cited reasons the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith Therefore

decisions have held that the passive holding of a domain name could support by clear and convincing evidence that a domain name is being used in bad faith However passive holding does not per se lead in a finding of bad faith use See Netflix Inc v

concluding that Respondent s passive holding of the domain name satisfies the requirement of Paragraph4 a iii of the Policy See also Clerical Med Inv Group Ltd v Clericalmedical.com D2000-1228 WIPO Nov 28 2000 finding that merely holding an

domain names so-called passive holding as set forth in the landmark decision Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Considering the circumstances of the case the notoriety of the Complainant's trademark

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

faith under the doctrine of passive holding Factors that have been considered relevant in 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

It is well established that passive use or non-use of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 In the circumstances of this case where three of the disputed domain

rights The Respondent's passive holding of the disputed domain names does not obstruct a finding of bad faith use under the Policy since i the Respondent has provided no evidence whatsoever of any actual or contemplated good faith use ii the

is not being actively used Passive holding of a domain name can nonetheless be a factor in finding bad faith registration and use under Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp v Risser FA 93761 Forum May 18 2000 The

It is well established that passive use or non-use of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 SAPIL is effectively an invented word and the use of the disputed

ricorre anche in caso di c.d passive holding cfr anche Dr Martens International Trading GmbH e Dr Maertens Marketing GmbH v Godaddy.com Inc Caso OMPI No D2017-0246 e Virgin Enterprises Limited v Cesar Alvarez Caso OMPI No D2016-2140 La

faith under the doctrine of passive holding A pattern of conduct can involve multiple UDRP cases with similar fact situations or a single case where the respondent has registered multiple domain names which are similar to trademarks However the