resembles the so-called passive holding In that regard all the circumstances of the case are to be examined in order to determine whether the Respondent is acting in bad faith See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case

Edmunds.com Inc v Triple E Holdings Limited WIPO Case No D2006-1095 Further the disputed domain name currently resolves to a server notice stating Apache is functioning normally the Panel finds that such use is regarded as passive use of the

it is coming soon akin to a passive holding does not avoid a finding of bad faith WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions Second Edition WIPO Overview 2.0 paragraph 3.2 The third element is satisfied 7 Decision For the

viewed as an instance of passive holding see WIPO Overview 2.0 paragraph 3.2 since the Domain Name has been used it has been redirected to specific websites Rather the Respondent s use has been commercial and illegitimate exploiting the

Complainant Although there is passive holding of the disputed domain name by the Respondent earlier UDRP panel decisions e.g Farouk Systems Inc v QYM WIPO Case No D2009-1572 Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003

contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith Considering the notoriety and strong reputation of the trademark DESIGUAL it is clear that the registration of similar domain names including the entirety

even in cases of so-called passive holding as found in the landmark decision Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 In the circumstances of this case the Panel finds that such passive holding amounts to bad

inactive directing only to holding pages which dismiss all idea of good faith use It is a fact that this passive holding of domain names especially including a well-known trademark without obvious legitimate purpose has been condemned by

circumstances of the case the passive holding of the disputed domain name and the Respondent s failure to provide accurate contact details in the WhoIs records are not sufficient to demonstrate the Respondent s bad faith 7 Decision For the

to positive actions and the passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith See also paragraph 3.2 of theWIPO Overview 2.0 The Respondent registered the disputed domain name using a privacy shield provided

contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith For the reasons described above and since the Respondent failed to provide any explanation in this regard the Panel contends on the balance of

panels have found that the passive holding of a domain name does not constitute a legitimate use of such domain name that would give rise to a legitimate right or interest in the domain name see e.g Société nationale des télécommunications

as it demonstrates that a passive holding of a domain name which has been registered for its significance as someone else s trademark constitutes use in bad faith under the Policy Accordingly the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has

& Company Inc and McKinsey Holdings Inc v Navid Hadzaad Case No D2016-1539 1 The Parties Complainant is McKinsey & Company Inc of New York New York United States of America United States and McKinsey Holdings Inc of New York New York United

and that the continued holding of the Domain Name is in bad faith This is consistent with the holding in Pfizer Inc v Legal Dept Barry McMahon and Pzifer ltd WIPO Case No D2013-2046 In addition it has been held in previous UDRP cases that

and that the continued holding of the Domain Name is in bad faith This is consistent with the holding in Pfizer Inc v Legal Dept Barry McMahon and Pzifer ltd WIPO Case No D2013-2046 In addition it has been held in previous UDRP cases that

and that the continued holding of the Domain Name 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 In addition it has been held in previous UDRP

to a landing page the passive holding of a domain name which has no other legitimate use and clearly references the Complainant s trademark may constitute registration and use in bad faith See also the leading case Telstra Corporation

or other online presence The passive holding of a domain name can constitute a bad faith use in certain conditions such as the particular circumstances in the present case The Respondent has still not started to use the disputed domain name after

in considering whether the passive holding of a domain name following a bad faith registration of it satisfies the requirements of paragraph 4 a iii the panel must give close attention to all the circumstances of the respondent s behavior and a