the Respondent s passive holding of the Domain Name amounts to use of the Domain Name in bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings A Identical or Confusingly Similar

faith under the doctrine of passive holding See WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 Here the present circumstances including the distinctiveness and reputation of the ALTRIA marks the failure of Respondent to submit a response or to provide any

As already ruled the mere passive holding of a domain name does not prevent the finding of a use in bad faith which then has to be assessed on a case by case basis in consideration of the overall circumstances Telstra Corporation Limited v

contact the trade mark 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

and that the Respondent's passive holding of the disputed domain name is evidence of bad faith RESPONDENT No administratively compliant Response has been filed Rights The Complainant has to the satisfaction of the Panel shown the disputed

the at issue domain name passively Browsing to coinbasenft.net indicates that a webpage cannot be accessed Respondent's passive holding of the confusingly similar coinbasenft.net domain name indicates Respondent's bad faith under Policy � 4 a

faith under the doctrine of passive holding The factors that are typically considered when applying the passive holding doctrine include i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant s mark ii the failure of the respondent to

website which constitutes passive holding of the disputed domain name to prevent the Complainant from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name Moreover the Complainant contends that the Respondent is attempting to sell the disputed

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

PANEL DECISION Coachillin Holdings LLC v Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot / Wu Yu Case No D2021-2998 1 The Parties The Complainant is Coachillin Holdings LLC United States of America United States represented by Dinsmore & Shohl LLP United

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

faith under the doctrine of passive holding The factors that are typically considered when applying the passive holding doctrine include i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant s mark ii the failure of the respondent to

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 or one of its affiliate s websites

trademark Second inactive or passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name by the Respondent may amount to bad faith use See Advance Magazine Publishers Inc and Les Publications Condé Nast S.A v ChinaVogue.com WIPO Case No D2005-0615 Société pour

asserts that Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name and cites prior UDRP panels that have found that non-use under the doctrine of passive holding does not prevent a finding of bad faith Complainant also notes that Respondent

websites v the Respondent s passively holding of the disputed domain names vi the Respondent engaged in a pattern of cybersquatting B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings 6.1 Language

PANEL DECISION ASOS Plc ASOS Holdings Limited ASOS.com Limited v 谢阿军 xie a jun Case No D2021-2613 1 The Parties The Complainants are ASOS Plc ASOS Holdings Limited and ASOS.com Limited United Kingdom represented by Stobbs IP Limited United

domain name followed by a passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes �use in bad faith The Panel agrees that the passive holding of a domain name does not necessarily circumvent a finding that the domain name is being used in bad

for sale iv the Respondents passive holding of the disputed domain names amount to use in bad faith B Respondents The Respondents did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings 6.1 Consolidation of proceedings The