Complainant submits that by passively holding the disputed domain name since its registration the Respondent is using it in bad faith v The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant B Respondent The

Finally the present passive holding of the disputed domain names completes the characterization of bad faith registration and use B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings

to an inactive website The passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith See paragraph 3.2 of theWIPO Overview 2.0 Furthermore the Panel notes the Respondent s email communications of June 10 and July 6 2015

contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith Examples of what may be cumulative circumstances found to be indicative of bad faith include cases in which i the Complainant has a well-known trademark

que se le conoce como passive holding la cual se considera mala fe B Demandado El Demandado no contestó a las alegaciones de la Demandante 6 Debate y conclusiones Para demostrar la procedencia de la Demanda es necesario que en el caso

the Panel notes that passive holding of a domain name does not prevent the finding of bad faith use See amongst others the leading case Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmellows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and a number of following

reasonably be claimed ii Passive holding of the Domain Name does not preclude a finding of bad faith all circumstances of Respondent behavior must be considered iii Complainant trademark had a strong reputation and was widely known iv

contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions Second Edition §3.2 DECISION Finding that all three elements required under the ICANN

where the respondent merely passively held the domain name In this case the period is only five months but the circumstances above in fact support the conclusion that the Respondent is passively holding the domain name thereby supporting the

No D2009-1529 noting that passive holding of a disputed domain name does not constitute a legitimate use of such a domain name that would give rise to a legitimate right or interest in the name Complainant also alleges that Respondent

contends that the current passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent the assessment of bad faith use B Respondent Respondent alleges that its intended email service works as a back-end service in which all emails are directed

apparent lack of active use passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith use under the UDRP In this case the Complainant further submits that the disputed domain name is offered for sale When the internet user clicks on the

states that the Respondent is passively holding the Domain Name and that the absence of any demonstrable plans to use the Domain Name in a bona fide fashion together with the absence of evidence of any actual use of the Domain Name for a bona fide

UDRP Panels have decided that passive holding does not preclude a finding of bad faith Where the Complainant s trade mark has a strong reputation and the Respondent is unable to provide evidence of actual good faith use and has further taken steps

Company supra acknowledges passive holding of the domain name without use in commerce may support a holding of use in bad faith citing Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The Panel also notes that the

by many UDRP panels that a passive holding of a disputed domain name in itself is typically not capable of creating any right of respondent therein Pepperdine University v BDC Partners Inc WIPO Case No D2006-1003 Archipelago Holdings LLC v

all domain names iii the word holding is deliberately used to associate with Complainant as Complainant is generally referred as KOC HOLDING because it is indeed a holding company iv adding the words holding and/or admin to the word koc gives even

AG Automobili Lamborghini Holding S.p.A Skoda Auto a.s Volkswagen AG v JUS TIN Pty Ltd Case No D2015-0827 1 The Parties The Complainants are Audi AG of Ingolstadt Germany Automobili Lamborghini Holding S.p.A of Sant'Agata Bolognese Italy Skoda

Nat Arb Forum July 31 2000 holding that the respondent s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true see also Talk City Inc v Robertson D2000-0009 WIPO Feb 29 2000 In the

PANEL DECISION Koc Holding A.S v Domain eRegistration / Domain ID Shield Service Case No D2015-0847 1 The Parties Complainant is Koc Holding A.S of Istanbul Turkey represented by June Intellectual Property Services Inc Turkey Respondent