faith under the doctrine of passive holding See section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 In the present circumstances considering the distinctiveness and reputation of the VIVENDI trademarks the failure of Respondent to submit a response or to

of a given case including passive holding in making its bad faith analysis.� See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows Case No D2000-0003 WIPO Feb 18 2000 after considering all the circumstances of a given case it is possible that

domain name constitutes passive holding by Respondent of the disputed domain name which demonstrates bad faith use Citing Telstra v Nuclear Marshmallows D2000-0003 WIPO Feb 18 2000 finding that the respondent's passive holding of a domain

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

use under the doctrine of passive holding The CANVA Mark is distinctive attained a strong reputation and was widely known at the time of registration of this domain name Furthermore the disputed domain names are clearly targeted towards the

that the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith Lastly the Complainant indicates that he opted not to reply to the Respondent s email communication to avoid any involvement in the

No D2021-2353 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

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

use and action taken the passive holding as is done now of the disputed domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith The Panel finds that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith 7 Decision For

faith under the doctrine of passive holding see for example Ladbrokes Betting & Gaming Limited v mehdi bouksila WIPO Case No D2021-3381 The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith 7

contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding see e.g CCA and B LLC v Domain Administrator Fundacion Privacy Services LTD WIPO Case No D2021-1531 The Panel must

to any active site So-called passive holding according to the Complainant indicates bad faith Nor is ENEL a common or descriptive term rather it is obviously a trademark in and to which the Complainant has demonstrable rights and what is more it

businesses including ARRIS Holdings�S.a.r.l ARRIS Global Holdings Inc and ARRIS Group Europe Holding BV � The Domain Name registered in 2022 is confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark containing it in its entirety and adding only the word

faith under the doctrine of passive holding See section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 Lastly in the present circumstances including the distinctiveness and reputation of the UKAS trademarks the failure of Respondent to submit a response or to

active use of a domain name passive holding does not in appropriate circumstances prevent a finding of bad faith See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions Third Edition section 3.3 Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear

faith under the doctrine of passive holding While UDRP 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

in view of 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

3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 passive holding of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith For the reasons set out above the Panel finds that paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy is satisfied 8 Decision For the foregoing reasons in

service unavailable This passive holding of the disputed domain names by the Respondent can be also considered as a use in bad faith considering the circumstances hereafter See section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 the Complainant s has

that the Respondent s present passive holding of the disputed domain name does not confer rights or legitimate interests The condition in paragraph 4 a ii of the Policy is therefore satisfied also with respect to this use of the disputed domain