an active website The current passive holding of the disputed domain name by the Respondent does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith use cf paragraph 3.2 of WIPO Overview 2.0 The Panel believes that the available record provides sufficient

The Panel notes that the passive holding of a domain name could also be considered as bad faith see Gary Regan v foley jw NAF Claim No 1427967 and Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel v Bryna Cytrynbaum WIPO Case No D2010-0165 In this

an active website The current passive holding of the disputed domain name by the Respondent does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith use cf paragraph 3.2 of WIPO Overview 2.0 The Panel believes that the available record provides sufficient

evidence of the Complainant holding registered rights in the trademark SDMO the first element of the disputed domain name sdmokohler.com and the Complainant s parent company holding registered rights in the trademark KOHLER the second element of

The Panel finds that the passive holding of a domain name that is identical to Complainants mark is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy paragraph 4 c i and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the

name in bad faith As regards passive holding previous panels have indeed held that the apparent lack of so-called active use e.g to resolve to a website of the domain name without any active attempt to sell or to contact the trademark holder

Names that Respondent is passively holding prior cases have established that the concept of bad faith use in paragraph 4 b of the Policy includes not only positive action but also passive holding in the presence of other circumstances

Dominio La tenencia pasiva o passive holding constituye causa justificativa de la mala fe tanto en el registro como en el uso del Nombre de Dominio Ver por ejemplo Banco de Vitoria S.A v Multimedia Digital Rioja S.L Caso OMPI No D2001-0496

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

in bad faith followed by passive holding of a domain name when there is no way in which it could be used legitimately can amount to use in bad faith The fact that the Respondent was hiding its identity behind a privacy protection service is

in bad faith followed by passive holding of a domain name when there is no way in which it could be used legitimately can amount to use in bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and

previous UDRP decisions that passive holding of a domain name containing a well-known trademark indicates that the Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith The association of the trademark STATOIL and the term group proves

contact the Complainant This passive holding of the disputed domain name by the Respondent leads to the conclusion that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith under the principles established by Telstra Corporation

in which it was found that a passive holding can constitute a domain name being used in bad faith Remedies Requested The Complainant requests that the Disputed Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant B Respondent The Respondent did not reply

faith based on the theory of passive holding noting that the Complainant has failed to establish bad faith registration which is required to move forward on a theory of passive holding The Respondent contends that its behavior does not satisfy any

PPC site However even such passive holding of the disputed domain name in itself is not capable of creating any rights of Respondent therein see e.g Pepperdine University v BDC Partners Inc WIPO Case No D2006-1003 Archipelago Holdings LLC v

contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith The panel must examine all the circumstances of the case to determine whether the respondent is acting in bad faith Examples of what may be cumulative

in a situation involving a passive holding of the domain name registration Accordingly the Panel finds that the present record supports a conclusion that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith and that

are empty This amounts to passive holding as the Trade Mark has a strong reputation and is widely known the Respondent has used at least two of the Disputed Domain Names in a fraudulent scam related to the sending of fake job offers For example

takes the view that the mere passive holding of the disputed domain names which by the time of rendering this decision redirect to websites set up by the Registrar does not at all prevent the finding of bad faith on the part of Respondent but that