in bad faith since also the passive holding or non-use of a domain name identical to a trademark can support a finding of bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings According to

interests in the Domain Name Passive holding of a confusingly similar domain name containing a third party mark with prior rights is registration and use in bad faith when considering factors such as the distinctive nature and reputation of the

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

submits that the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain names constitutes use in bad faith especially since the Respondent has taken steps to mask its identity The Complainant seeks a decision that the disputed domain names be

falls within the doctrine of passive holding Indeed all the relevant factors for applying the passive holding doctrine are met here i the Complainant s mark counts among the most well-known trademarks in the world ii the Respondent has failed to

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

active website but rather a passive website where it is offered for sale for USD 1.288 00 Previous UDRP panels have found that the non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding While

a blank page Respondent's passive holding of the at-issue domain name 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 Thermo Electron Corp v Xu

office showing that Realogy Holdings Corporation was organized in Delaware that same year.  The Complaint states that Complainant operates under the business name Realogy Holdings Corporation which is the ultimate parent company of Complainant. 

iv of the Policy The current passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith Therefore the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith The Complainant has

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

of the Telstra concept of passive holding of a domain name see WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Telstra Corporation v Nuclear Marshmallows Applying the Telstra criteria the Panel agrees in light of the evidence notes above that the mark is distinctive

FA 572937 Forum Nov 18 2005 holding that the addition of both the word advisors and the gTLD com did not sufficiently alter the disputed domain name to negate a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4 a i see also Bloomberg Finance L.P v

faith under the doctrine of passive holding when circumstances exist such as the distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant s mark the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good

faith under the doctrine of passive holding when circumstances exist such as the distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant s mark the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good

faith under the doctrine of passive holding See WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 Rather the Panel finds that the change in use further suggests the lack of good-faith explanation as for the Respondent s initial use of the disputed domain name

disputed domain names beyond passively holding them The Respondent is not known nor has ever been known by the distinctive CANVA mark nor by the terms hellocanva or hoccanva As emphasized above the Respondent has no connection or affiliation with

pursuant to the doctrine of passive holding the inactive status of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith See section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 For the reasons stated above the Panel finds that the disputed domain

faith under the doctrine of passive holding See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and Section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 Therefore the Panel finds that the Complainant has also proven that the Respondent

circumstances under which the passive holding of a domain name will be considered to be a bad faith registration While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case factors that have been considered relevant in applying the