and services but rather it passively held the disputed domain name It is well established by UDRP panels that passive holding a domain name that incorporates a third party well-known mark under certain circumstances is recognized as bad faith

Post Renewal Bad Faith Passive Holding ADR.eu prior decisions have ordered transfer of domain name registrations where the respondent was found to engage in acts of post renewal passive holding The previously cited ADR.eu decision in

The Complainant is the holding company of the АХА Group The АХА Group is a world leader in three major lines of business property and casualty insurance life insurance and savings and asset management The AXA Group is present in 57

domain name so-called passive holding as set forth in the landmark decision Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The lack of replying to the Complainant s cease and desist letter is a further proof of

Mizrahi and that Respondent s passive holding or warehousing of the domain name is neither a legitimate noncommercial use nor a fair use Complainant further alleges that in light of Complainant s prior use of the ISAACMIZRAHILIVE mark in commerce

content constitutes inactive holding of the domain name Such inactive holding is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy Paragraph4 c i nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy Paragraph4 c iii 18 Furthermore

2013 On September 26 2013 DNC Holdings Inc confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the hitechpet.com domain name is registered with DNC Holdings Inc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name DNC Holdings Inc has

name taken together with the passive holding of the disputed domain name by the Respondent constitute evidence of bad faith registration or use within the meaning of the Policy B Respondent The Respondent did not file any response 6 Discussion and

been used the Respondent s passive holding of the domain name does not prevent the Panel from finding that on balance it registered and used the disputed domain name 4ovh.net in bad faith See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows

s arguments regarding passive holding are apropos to the question of whether a trademark holder must wait for overt activity before commencing a UDRP action to obtain transfer of the domain name While the facts here are different from the

have consistently held that passive holding of domain names can under certain circumstances be considered bad faith use of the domain name Fourth the Respondent has spurned all opportunities to demonstrate that he had registered and is using the

4 a iii of the Policy The passive holding of a domain name following its bad faith registration can satisfy the requirements of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy if the circumstances of respondent s behavior are indicative of bad faith see

that the respondent s passive holding of the domain name satisfies the requirement of Paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy see also Clerical Med Inv Group Ltd v Clericalmedical.com D2000-1228 WIPO Nov 28 2000 finding that merely holding an

Panels have held that the passive holding of a domain name can be considered as use in bad faith see WIPO Case No D2000-0003 telstra.org and WIPO Case No D2011-0421 browns.com In consideration of the above the Panel deems that the domain name

name otherwise Respondent passively held the name from 2001 onward The disputed domain name is identical to Complainant s legal and common law protected mark Respondent registered and passively held the disputed domain name in bad faith

is no longer accessible and passive holding of a domain name can be evidence of bad faith For example it was said in DCI S.A v Link Commercial Corporation WIPO D2000-1232 December 7 2000 The Administrative Panel follows the rulings set out in the

that a respondent s inactive holding of the disputed domain name supported a finding of bad faith under Policy Paragraph 4 a iii stating Respondent s failure to submit an assertion of good faith intent to use the domain name in addition to the

Nat Arb Forum Apr 20 2005 the passive holding of a domain name that is identical to Complainant s 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

failing to make any use or passive holding of disputed domain names is not a bona fide offering of goods or services and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy Paragraph Paragraph 4 c i or 4 c iii See George Weston

the domain name and thus passively holding the disputed domain name does not negate bad faith Previous panels have found that passively holding a confusingly similar or identical domain name satisfies the requirement of Paragraph 4 a iii See