Even though Respondent is passively holding and not actively using the Domain Name at present if it did so it would be likely to mislead or deceive consumers into believing they were accessing Complainant s website contrary to the fact Under

the disputed domain name is a passive holding As noted in paragraph 4.B.3 above it does not resolve to an active website Citing the decision in Microsoft Corporation v Charolais Chrisochoou WIPO Case No D2004-0186 Complainant submits that the

UDRP Panels have considered a passive holding situation constitutes bad faith associated with other elements such as the degree of notoriety of the mark or the Respondent s lack of response as is the case here see section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview

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

even in cases of so-called passive holding as found in the landmark UDRP decision Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 In the circumstances of this case the Panel finds that such passive holding does not

to an active web site i.e is passively held As established in a number of prior cases the concept of bad faith use in paragraph 4 b of the Policy includes not only positive action but also passive holding especially in cases of domain name

relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine such as i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant s mark ii the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated

foi La présente situation de passive holding correspond très exactement aux observations figurant à la Synthèse de l OMPI version 3.0 à savoir notoriété de la marque défaut du Défendeur se dispensant donc de répondre masquage de l

domain name The Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name and there are no indications that the Respondent plans to use it Under the circumstances the Complainants are of the opinion that i the Respondent is not making a bona fide

demonstrated bad faith by passive holding of the disputed domain name alwayspans.com Such a finding is consistent with previous UDRP decisions such as Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 See also WIPO

function  Respondent's passive holding of the at-issue domain name is not indicative of a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶¶ 4 c i nor of a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4 c iii See Activision Blizzard Inc /

even in cases of so-called passive holding as found in the landmark UDRP decision Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 In the circumstances of this case the Panel finds that such passive holding amounts to

circumstances of inaction passive holding other than those identified in paragraphs 4 b i ii and iii can constitute a domain name being used in bad faith concluding that the question can only be answered in respect of the particular facts of a

faith under the doctrine of passive holding see section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions Third Edition WIPO Overview 3.0 Furthermore the Complainant has to the Panel s satisfaction proved a worldwide

to the Complainant The passive holding of the disputed domain name being inactive and redirected to a platform perfetdomain.com where it is offered for sale at a price of USD 2 599 indicates that the disputed domain name has been registered

the practice under the UDRP holding that there can be a finding of registration and use in bad faith where there is passive use of a widely known trademark in a domain name and there is no response and no explanation as to why the use could be

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

inactive error web page This passive holding of the Domain Name further supports that the Respondent is not making any bona fide or legitimate business use of the Domain Name Furthermore the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad

have any active content a passive holding of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings Notwithstanding the default of the

faith under the doctrine of passive holding Having considered the full circumstances of the case including the nature of the Domain Name the Parties contentions and supporting evidence or lack thereof the Panel finds that on balance Complainant