constitutes a case of website passive holding and refers to previous WIPO UDRP decisions which support the finding of bad faith in passive holding for instance Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 ItaúUnibanco

and that the Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain names for that purpose B Respondent The Respondent asserts that he has used Nuvo and Nuvo TV as far back as 2005 and claims common law trademark rights in these designations The

letter of the Respondent passive holding of the domain name by the Respondent suspension of the disputed domain name due to 419 scam activities the behaviour of the Respondent amounts to bad faith see e.g WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Telstra

Domain Name and is only passively holding the Disputed Domain Name with the effect of blocking Complainant from registering a website that could be directed toward its Colombian customers Complainant presents correspondence between

that the Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain names Passive holding does not prevent a finding of bad faith under certain circumstances see e.g Airbus SAS Airbus Operations GmbH v Alesini Pablo Hernan / PrivacyProtect.org WIPO

Panel additionally notes that passive holding may in certain circumstances constitute further evidence of bad faith use especially when Complainant has a well-known trademark and no Response to the Complaint was received as it happens in the

this is a classic case of passive holding The Complainant therefore requests the Panel that the disputed domain names pharmacieauchan.com and pharmacieauchan.net be transferred to the Complainant B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the

which have held that passive holding of a domain name may be considered evidence of bad faith such as Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Jupiters Limited v Aaron Hall WIPO Case No D2000-0574 and

UDRP panels have found that passive holding of a disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith Cleveland Browns Football Company LLC v Andrea Denise Dinoia WIPO Case No D2011-0421 and that UDRP panels should consider all the

de um nome de domínio passive holding pode em certos casos constituir mais uma evidência de má-fé especialmente quando o reclamante é titular de uma marca notória e o reclamado deixa de apresentar resposta à o reclamação como na

name is in essence being passively held by Respondent Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 established that in certain circumstances the passive holding of a domain name could amount to use of the domain

Respondent registration and passive holding of the disputed domain name also reflect a deliberate intent to create a nuisance and to interfere with the Complainant business such that the Complainant or one of its competitors might be persuaded to

to any active web-site such passive holding of the disputed domain name in itself is not capable of creating any rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent therein see e.g Pepperdine University v BDC Partners Inc WIPO Case No D2006-1003

constitute at best passive holding of the Domain Name Many panels have held that the passive holding of a domain name can constitute bad faith in light of the overall circumstances of the case See e.g Telstra Corporation Limited v

Domain Name is currently a holding page However passive holding of the website does not prevent the Panel from finding registration and use in bad faith The Panel further notes that Respondent undeveloped use of the website at the Domain Name

finding of bad faith based on passive holding of a domain name see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions Second Edition at paragraph 3.2 WIPO Overview 2.0 That is in circumstances where there is no reasonably plausible

According to Complainant the passive holding of the Domain Name does not demonstrate use of the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services Respondent is also not commonly known by the Domain Name Complainant submits

established that the mere passive holding of a domain name may in appropriate circumstances be evidence not only of bad faith registration but also of bad faith use See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003

2007 the panel held that the holding of an inactive website is not a protected use under Policy Paragraph Paragraph4 c i and 4 c iii There are no legitimate rights gained by passively holding a domain name Telstra Corp v Nuclear Marshmallows

This may be analogous to passive holding which is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name nor does it constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services The Respondent acknowledges that it was aware of the