Name Finally the current passive holding of the Domain Name does not give rise to any rights or legitimate interests Thus the Panel finds that the second element of the UDRP has been met C Registered and Used in Bad Faith Under the third UDRP

including Respondent s passive holding of the Domain Name indicates bad faith in this case The Panel disagrees While Complainant has referred to the Telstra case where the respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name was found to

that the use is inactive this passive holding is also bad faith The Domain Name was registered on December 25 2014 B Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding FINDINGS Complainant has registered trade marks for the

In these circumstances the passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent this finding 6.23 The Panel therefore finds that paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy has been satisfied 7 Decision 7.1 For the foregoing reasons in accordance

and that the Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name for the purpose of transferring the disputed domain name to the Complainants for valuable consideration in excess of its documented out-of-pocket costs B Respondent The

the Domain Name resolves to a holding page and is not being used for any purpose other than this resolution In appropriate circumstances such passive holding of a domain name without evidence of any other use or intended use does not prevent a

PANEL DECISION Mövenpick Holding AG v Domains By Proxy LLC / Abd El aal Mahmoud Saua Societa Coop.A.R.L Case No D2016-0070 1 The Parties Complainant is Mövenpick Holding AG of Baar Switzerland represented by SILKA Law AB Sweden Respondent is

the question of whether the passive holding of a domain name could constitute bad faith Paragraph 3.2 of the already quoted WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions Second Edition WIPO Overview 2.0 states that panels have

the question of whether the passive holding of a domain name could constitute bad faith Paragraph 3.2 of the already quoted WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions Second Edition WIPO Overview 2.0 states that panels have

Panel notes that the current passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name does not give rise to any rights or legitimate interests Likewise based on the available record even if the products formerly offered for sale at the website to which the

that their registration and passive holding in light of the first Respondent s prior conduct and present use of igtrades.net is such as to amount to registration and use in bad faith within the meaning of the Policy citing Hilton Worldwide Hilton

The Respondent appears to be passively holding the domain name which appears to have been registered in 1998 see WIPO Overview 2.0 Question 3.2 The Respondent knew or should have known about the existence of Complainant s trade marks Complainant

registered and is using or passively holding the disputed domain names in bad faith First Respondent s use of the kohlerenginekits.com domain to sell products that are in direct competition with Complainant s business disrupts and competes with

The Panel first notes that passive holding does not preclude a finding of bad faith see Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Consequently the Panel must examine all the circumstances of the case to determine

WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The passive holding of a domain name may amount to bad faith registration and use when it is difficult to imagine any conceivable future use of the domain name that would be legitimate and would not infringe a complainant

Complainants say that this is passive holding of a domain name incorporating a well-known trademark and that this is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use and confers no rights or legitimate interests upon the Respondent The Complainants state

Finding for Complainant The passive holding of a domain name can constitute bad faith registration and use especially when combined with other factors such as the respondent preventing a trademark or service mark holder from reflecting its mark

used by the Respondent passive holding may amount to bad faith use in certain circumstances and argues that this is the case here especially given the reputation of the Complainant's trade mark Respondent The Respondent did not respond to

s own website Furthermore passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith use WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions Second Edition WIPO Overview 2.0 paragraph 3.2 Rather the Panel must look at the totality

DETERMINATION Boucheron Holding SAS v Zhang Hong Jie Claim Number FA1602001661442 DOMAIN NAME boucheron.top PARTIES Complainant Boucheron Holding SAS of Paris France Complainant Representative Complainant Representative INSIDERS of Paris