found that inactive use or passive holding of a domain name violates the Policy See Microsoft Corporation v Asia Proxies/Instant Gaming Limited FA 1686749 FORUM September 7 2016 finding the failure to use the disputed domain name to violate the

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 Examples of what may be cumulative

name in addition to the passive holding of the domain name reveal that Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith Complainant next contends that Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith to

the Domain Name despite holding it for more than six years And the Complainant has a simple domain name corresponding to its trademark which it was already using before the Respondent registered the Domain Name at issue here The passive

The Domain Name is currently passively held by the Respondent and the Complainant suggests the registration and passive holding of a domain name identical to a well-known mark must be use in bad faith The Respondent s passive holding of the Domain

contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith see Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and HUGO BOSS Trade Mark Management GmbH & Co KG HUGO BOSS AG v Dzianis

used in bad faith even with passive holding That continued use of the disputed domain names would lead to a likelihood of confusion as to the source sponsorship affiliation or endorsement of the Respondent by the Complainant including for illegal

mainly on the doctrine of passive bad faith holding and indicates that a criteria set out in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 is met in particular because the trade mark FUNDSMITH enjoys a strong

therefore is akin to being passively held Passive holding of a domain name has to be considered in the context of the circumstances in determining whether it constitutes evidence of good or bad faith See e.g Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear

finds that the Respondent's passive holding of the Disputed Domain Names that are currently inactive constitutes use in bad faith As the Disputed Domain Names have been registered and are being used in bad faith the condition of paragraph 4 a iii

bad faith the doctrine of passive holding as articulated in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 is applicable here In that well-known case the panel wrote that it is possible in certain circumstances for

that the Respondents have passively held the disputed domain names According to the Complainant the Respondents cannot obtain or derive any rights of legitimate interests through the passive holding of the dispute domain names Further given the

disputed domain name and that passive holding of the disputed domain name permits an inference of the registration and use in bad faith see also Clerical Med Inv Group Ltd v Clericalmedical.com D2000-1228 WIPO November 28 2000 finding that merely

finds that the Respondent's passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name that is currently inactive constitutes use in bad faith As the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith the condition of paragraph 4 a iii of

resolves to a parked holding page Both pornography distribution and blank holding pages do not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services or any legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy Paragraph Paragraph 4 c i or iii

that the Respondent is only passively holding the Disputed domain name By doing so the Respondent deprives the owner of the trademarks BOLLORE of using this Disputed domain name This can be considered as passive retention On this basis the

parked pages and the current passive holding of the disputed domain name are evidence of registration and use in bad faith 8 Decision For the foregoing reasons in accordance with paragraphs 4 i of the Policy and 15 of the Rules the Panel orders

Although the Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain names passive holding can still constitute bad faith use under the particular circumstances See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The

to previous UDRP panels the passive holding or non-use of domain names is in appropriate circumstances evidence of a lack of rights or legitimate interests in the domain names See Red Bull GmbH v Credit du Léman SA Jean-Denis Deletraz WIPO Case

use The Respondent s current passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name is further evidence of bad faith In these circumstances the registration of the Disputed Domain Name using a privacy service also supports a finding of bad faith see e.g The