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

which might be deemed as passive holding absent any evidence of redirecting to other websites Several UDRP decisions have held that the passive holding of a domain name that incorporates a well-known trademark without obvious legitimate

to an active site This is passive holding Respondent has never been known as Altria Respondent is not authorised or licensed by Complainant to use the ALTRIA mark Respondent has no legitimate interests in the Domain Name Respondent was

be considered active However passive holding of a domain name does not prevent the Panel from finding registration and use in bad faith See e.g CREDIT AGRICOLE S.A v Alain Pattinson CAC case No 101459 The Complainant has to the satisfaction of the

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

wishes to remind that such passive holding does not prevent a finding of bad faith since according to prior UDRP panel decisions the panel must examine all the circumstances of the case to determine whether the respondent is acting in bad faith

that the Respondent's alleged passive holding of the Domain Name amounts to bad faith the Panel also rejects this claim The WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 addressing passive holding provides that the panel must examine the totality of the

view that the Respondent's passive holding of the disputed domain name displaces the inference of bad faith see e.g Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 On the contrary the Panel infers on the balance of

faith from the Respondent's passive holding of a Domain Name based on a famous mark to which it had no legitimate claim combined with the Respondent's masking its identity with a domain privacy service B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to

to an active website The passive holding of a domain name does not show a legitimate use or bona fide offering of goods or services See Teachers Ins and Annuity Ass n of Am v Wreaks Commc ns Group D2006-0483 WIPO June 15 2006 passive holding

can be perceived as an act of passive holding preventing the Complainant from exercising the rights conferred by its trade marks The Complainant argues that the Respondent's holding of the disputed domain name without any legal right to use the

and desist letter constituted passive holding in bad faith The fact that the Respondent started using the disputed domain name on receipt of the letter following inactivity for over a year is further evidence of use in bad faith Use of a privacy

in bad faith and the passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes use of the disputed domain name in bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4 a of

site indicates that it is a passive holder of the Domain Name which does not prevent UDRP panels from finding bad faith registration and use Complainant states that the word tadim has no meaning in Chinese language which is the official language

name is used in good faith Passive holding can also be considered to be use in bad faith where the trade mark concerned has a strong reputation and widely known the respondent has provided no evidence of any actual or contemplated good faith use

view that the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name displaces the inference of bad faith see e.g Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 nor that the content of the Respondent s April 24 2017

factors when applying the passive holding doctrine the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant s mark the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use the

panels have found that passive holding of a domain does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or service or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name See Bloomberg Finance L.P v henrylau / jiatong FA 1657447

name This is often termed the passive holding doctrine as articulated in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 See WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 The passive holding doctrine is well suited to the current

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