disputed domain name and the passive holding of the disputed domain name satisfy the bad faith requirement of paragraph 4 a iii Further inference of bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name is given by the fact that the

making any use and is only passively holding the disputed domain name c the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith given the following factors 1 as the term credit mutuel is not a common term and is a

faith under the doctrine of passive holding In addition in a similar case involving the same Complainant it was held that the registration of the Domain Name which contains obvious misspelling of the Complainant s BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM trademark

in many UDRP cases that passive holding under the appropriate circumstances falls within the concept of the domain name being used in bad faith The lack of use of the disputed domain name particularly close to those used by the Complainant is

faith under the doctrine of passive holding Further the domain has also been used to configure email servers and thus could possibly be engaged in a phishing scheme For the above reasons the third part of the paragraph 4 a of the Policy is

Panel notes that the current passive holding does not preclude a finding of bad faith see Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 In fact the further circumstances surrounding the disputed domain name s

an active website The current passive holding of the disputed domain name does not absolve the Respondent of bad faith registration and use and in fact under the circumstances of this case is further evidence of bad faith registration and use A

content Respondent's passive holding of the at-issue domain name thus shows neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy � 4 c i nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy � 4 c iii See Dell Inc v link growth

s commercial gain The current passive holding of the disputed domain name does not absolve the Respondent of bad faith registration and use and in fact under the circumstances of this case supports a finding of bad faith registration and use See

is currently inactive such passive holding of the disputed domain name by Respondent amounts to use in bad faith The Panel notes that the domain name currently directs toward the hosting provider s default page which can be considered as

faith under the doctrine of passive holding see also Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and Dr Martens International Trading GmbH and Dr Maertens Marketing GmbH v Godaddy.com Inc WIPO Case No D2017-0246 In

of bad faith use Applying the passive holding doctrine as summarized in section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 the Panel assesses the Complainant s trademark BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM as sufficiently distinctive so that any good-faith use of the

to an inactive website the passive holding behavior falls within the concept of the domain name being used in bad faith as it has been established in many UDRP cases Finally the Complainant submits that the Respondent has neither prior rights

the Respondent s non-use or passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy see WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 For all the foregoing reasons the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name has

to an inactive web site.� Passive holding of a domain name is also evidence of bad faith.� Given the non-exclusive nature of Policy � 4 b failure to make active use of a confusingly similar domain name is also evidence of bad faith �Caravan

faith under the doctrine of passive holding SeeTelstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The Panel notes the following factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine i the

faith under the doctrine of passive holding While UDRP panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include i the degree of

faith under the doctrine of passive holding While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include i the degree of distinctiveness or

the doctrine of so-called passive holding In accordance with section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 the relevant factors that should be taken into account when assessing the existence of bad faith in the passive holding of a domain name are the

Internet users and that the passive holding constitutes bad faith use that damages the reputation of the Complainant s brand Moreover the Complainant contends that the use of the disputed domain name to host an inactive or parked website does not