with no original content The passive holding of a domain name reflecting a famous trademark has frequently been found to be bad faith registration Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows supra Accordingly the Panel finds that the

ii the Respondent non-use or passive holding of the Disputed Domain Names iii the threat by the Respondent to sell the Disputed Domain Names to a third party iv the fact that the Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Names and v

ii the Respondent non-use or passive holding of the Disputed Domain Names iii the threat by the Respondent to sell the Disputed Domain Names to a third party iv the fact that the Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Names and v

to an inactive website Passive holding of the disputed domain name coupled with the fame of the Complainant's MICHELIN trademark does not avoid a bad faith finding It has long been generally held in UDRP decisions that the passive holding of

Panel finds that Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name demonstrates Respondent s bad faith pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 a iii Complainant contends that in light of the fame and notoriety of Complainant LOCKHEED MARTIN mark it

that the 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

currently the Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name 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

and inactions constitute passive use or holding of the Domain Name Additionally a review of the WhoIs record for the Domain Name shows that the Respondent has provided fictitious contact information in its registration details for the Domain

According to the Panel 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

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

of this case the current passive holding of the disputed domain name is further evidence of bad faith For the reasons above the Respondent s conduct has to be considered in this Panel s view as bad faith registration and use of the disputed

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

ADMINISTRATIVE Auchan Holding contre Leo Gatineau Litige No D2017-0102 1 Les parties Le Requérant est Auchan Holding de Croix France représenté par Dreyfus & associés France Le Défendeur est Leo Gatineau de Nice France 2 Nom de domaine

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

it to the trademark holder passive holding does not as such preclude the finding of bad faith On the other hand passive holding as such need not imply a motivation that the Domain Name has been registered by Respondent in order to prevent

similar domain names as a passive holding landing site can evince a lack of a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use See Bloomberg L.P v SC Media Servs & Info SRL FA 296583 Forum Sept 2 2004 Respondent

Clearinghouse and Respondent passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith but all circumstances of the case must be examined to determine whether the Respondent is acting in bad faith In the current

contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith paragraph 3.2 WIPO Overview 2.0 The WIPO Overview 2.0 further states The panel must examine all the circumstances of the case to determine whether the

contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith paragraph 3.2 WIPO Overview 2.0 The WIPO Overview 2.0 further states The panel must examine all the circumstances of the case to determine whether the

concludes that Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under Policy paragraph 4 a iii and that Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith The Panel therefore finds that Respondent s inactive