that such constitutes passive use or holding of the Domain Name It is additionally noted that no evidence has been provided by the Respondent of any actual or contemplated legitimate noncommercial good faith or fair use of the Domain Name

does amounts to a so-called passive holding The visible use of the disputed domain name is a holding page from the hosting company InMotion Hosting that delivers a message to the owner of the disputed domain name about its domain name being

in similar manner Moreover passive holding of a domain name can support a finding of bad faith registration and use See Baylor Univ v Hinson FA 1573005 Forum Sept 2 2014 citing Disney Enters Inc v Meyers FA 697818 Forum June 26 2006 5 Even if

that this is a case of passive holding in bad faith and therefore use in bad faith The Examiner finds clear and convincing evidence that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith Accordingly URS Procedure 1.2.6.3

that this is a case of passive holding in bad faith and therefore use in bad faith The Examiner finds clear and convincing evidence that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith Accordingly URS Procedure 1.2.6.3

that this is a case of passive holding in bad faith and therefore use in bad faith The Examiner finds clear and convincing evidence that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith Accordingly URS Procedure 1.2.6.3

Respondent has engaged in a passive holding of the disputed domain name Moreover in its additional arguments the Complainant submitted new facts and evidence to show the Respondent bad faith The Complainant explains that it received at its head

bad faith ii The Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name is evidence of use in bad faith in combination with the fact that the Complainant s trademark is well known the Respondent has not responded to the Complaint and has made

is demonstrated by its passive holding of the domain name to the exclusion of the Complainants B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings Notwithstanding the default of Respondent it

use cannot be made the passive holding of the Domain Name by the Respondent can constitute bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 4 a of the

PANEL DECISION TPI Holdings Inc v Domain Admin Privacy Protected / Vimmer Dal Gol Auto and Motorcycle Trader Case No D2016-0736 1 The Parties The Complainant is TPI Holdings Inc of Atlanta Georgia United States of America represented by

parking website is considered passive holding the Complainant refers to one of the first cases ever decided under the Policy namely Telstra Corp Ltd v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Finally the Complainant cites the Respondent conduct

of this casel the passive holding of the Domain Name is no bar to a finding of bad faith use The Panel finds that the Domain Name was registered in bad faith and is being used in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4 a iii of the

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

DETERMINATION Boucheron Holding SAS v zhouhaotian et al Claim Number FA1605001676556 DOMAIN NAME boucheron.pub PARTIES Complainant Boucheron Holding SAS of Paris France Complainant Representative Complainant Representative INSIDERS of Paris

where a registrant s passive holding of a domain name would support by clear and convincing evidence that a domain name is being used in bad faith Complainant has put forth no facts to support such a conclusion in this case In sum after

the disputed Domain Name The passive holding of a disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of use in bad faith see Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The disputed Domain Name was registered in 2016

The Respondent passive holding of the disputed domain names buyvaliumonlineglp.com and generivaliumglp.com is evidence of bad faith use in certain circumstances VALIUM is a well-known trademark no response to the Complaint has been

UDRP panels have found that 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 name see e.g Société Nationale des télécommunications Tunisie

decisions confirmed that the passive holding of a domain name with knowledge that the domain name infringes another party trademark rights is evidence of bad faith registration and use Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position