constitute bad faith use as passive holding Moreover the provided contact details in the WhoIs data of the disputed domain names seem to be false or fictitious In addition the Respondent s email address stated in the WhoIs data of the disputed

that the Respondent s passive holding of the Domain Name is further evidence of the Respondent s bad faith For the above-cited reasons the Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy 7 Decision For the

t working This constitutes passive holding and violates the Policy See Telstra Corporation Ltd v Nuclear Marshmallows supra The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith and thus Complainant meets

Name in bad faith See Vakko Holding Anonim Sti v Esat Ist WIPO Case No D2001-1173 Although the Domain Name does not resolve to any website when this decision is made the Panel determines that this passive holding of the Domain Name does not

Intellectual Property Group Holding S.A v Felicia Bonds Case No D2017-0304 1 The Parties The Complainant is Intertrust Intellectual Property Group Holding S.A of Geneva Switzerland represented by Merkenbureau Knijff & Partners B.V the Netherlands

In this context Respondent s passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name evidences bad faith registration and use 32 Respondent was on notice of Complainant s CITIBANK Marks prior to registering the Disputed Domain Name given the global fame of

It is well-established that passive holding does not prevent a finding of bad faith See paragraph 3.2 WIPO Overview 2.0 As one UDRP panel held in similar circumstances the presence of the Domain Name in the hands of the Respondent represents in

they are currently inactive passive holding does not preclude a finding of bad faith when the circumstances in the Respondent's behavior indicate the absence of bona fide use It is likely that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names

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

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

by many previous UDRP panels passive holding of a domain name may also lead to a finding of bad faith use of a domain name The registration of the disputed domain name incorporating the Complainant s well-known Trademark together with the fact

Further it contends that the passive holding of the Domain Names does not provide a right or legitimate interest for the purposes of the Policy It also claims that the Respondent s threat to sell the Domain Names demonstrates a lack of rights or

in dealing with cases of passive holding The panelist in that caseexplored the rationale that in certain circumstances specific to a case passive holding of a domain name could satisfy the requirement for use in bad faith under paragraph 4 a

the Respondent s present passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith in this instance Inaction by the respondent can constitute bad faith use when the respondent has registered the domain name in bad faith and the

is engaged in bad faith passive holding in particular because the name of the Respondent is concealed Using a false identity proves bad faith passive holding of the Domain Name The Respondent shows an awareness of the Complainant's name and

of the AIR FRANCE Mark The passive holding of the Disputed Domain Names given the strength of the AIR FRANCE Mark does not prevent a finding of bad faith Furthermore Complainant alleges that Respondent has engaged in several other domain-name

3.2 of the WIPO Overview 2.0 passive holding as such does not prevent a finding of bad faith Based on the above the evidence and the circumstances in this case the Panel finds that the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name

name in addition to the passive holding of the domain name reveal that r espondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith Hewlett-Packard Co v Martineau FA 95359 FORUM Aug 30 2000 The Panel concludes that u nder the circumstances

previous UDRP panels is that passive holding in itself does not preclude a finding of bad faith The panel must examine all the circumstances of the case to determine whether a respondent is acting in bad faith See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views

and use of that domain name passively holding a domain name can constitute a factor in finding bad faith registration and use t he Disputed Domain Names can only be taken as intending to cause confusion among Internet users as to the source of