support of its case that the passive holding of a well-known and distinctive name amounts to bad faith registration and use Further evidence of bad faith is also present as the Respondent is engaged in a pattern of registering well-known names as

and that the continued holding of the Domain Names is in bad faith This is consistent with the holding in Pfizer Inc v Legal Dept Barry McMahon and Pfizer ltd Sys Admin WIPO Case No D2013-2046 It has been held in previous UDRP decisions that

UDRP panels have found that passive holding based on the totality of the circumstances may amount to bad faith registration and use In light of all the above circumstances the Panel is satisfied that the third element is met and that the disputed

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 T the significance of the distinction is that the concept of a domain name

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 the respondent is acting in bad faith see WIPO Overview 2.0 paragraph 3.2

further states that passive holding of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith A panel must consider all of the circumstances of the case to determine whether the Respondent is acting in bad faith Examples of cumulative

the event of a Respondent s passive holding of a domain name In that case the panel found bad faith as the result of the following circumstances i the Complainant s trademark has a strong reputation and is widely known as evidenced by its

is effectively engaged in passive holding of the disputed Domain Names within the terms originally established by Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The panel in Telstra noted that the question as to

the Respondent s arguable passive holding of the disputed domain name does not preclude a finding of bad faith See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows supra To the contrary the Respondent s registration and holding of the

Name not least as due to the passive holding of the Domain Name with no active website Alternatively even if this was not one of the reasons behind the Respondent's registration and use of the Domain Name the examples of bad faith registration and

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

unauthorized registration and passive holding of the disputed domain name to constitute bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name within the meaning of the Policy Accordingly the Complainant has satisfied all three elements of

Inc WIPO Case No D2004-0615 passive holding of a domain name in appropriate circumstances constitute evidence of bad faith registration and use The Complainant further explains that the UDRP panels tended to make such findings in 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 the respondent is acting in bad faith see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel

domain names and websites The passive holding of the disputed domain name is likely to cause irreparable prejudice to the Complainant s general goodwill once it could lead Internet users to believe the Complainant is not on the Internet or it is

contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as such indicate lack of legitimate interests in the domain name Examples of what may be cumulative circumstances found to be indicative of non-legitimate use include the Complainant having a

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 In the case at hand the Panel is

part of the Respondent and passively holding a domain name can constitute a factor in finding bad faith registration and use In the Complainant s view in this case the Domain Name aarpprovider.net is confusingly similar to the Complainant s

panels have found that such passive holding of a disputed domain name can allow for a finding of bad faith registration and use of that name in some circumstances See Malayan Banking Berhad v Beauty Success & Truth International WIPO Case No

s competitors Respondent s passive holding of the remaining disputed domain names also interferes with Complainant s trademark rights and constitutes bad faith use Even assuming that Respondent is Complainant s fan that does not excuse