case In addition the current passive holding of the disputed domain names does not prevent a finding of bad faith The Respondent has not denied the Complainant s allegations of bad faith Taking into account all the circumstances the Panel

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

by the Respondent and its passive holding likely in the aim of fraudulent uses are for the purpose of commercial gain and then constitute bad faith registration and use Also the concealment of the Respondent s identity is an indication of bad

the at issue domain name passively Respondent's passive holding of confusingly similar cryptobloomberg.net domain name indicates Respondent's bad faith under Policy ¶ 4 a iii See Dermtek Pharmaceuticals Ltd v Sang Im / Private Registration

due to Respondent's inactive holding of them and their potential for use in connection with phishing In a number of cases under the Policy Complainant has obtained transfer of domain names incorporating the ABBVIE mark which had been registered

faith under the doctrine of passive holding Under the Policy it is sufficient to prove that the disputed domain name has been either registered or used in bad faith however taking into account all the circumstances of this case Complainant

conditions of bad faith to passive holding see Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The Panel also finds that Complainants have satisfied the requirement of article 2.1 sub c of the Regulations 8 Decision

submits that the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes use in bad faith especially since the Respondent has taken steps to mask his identity B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6

Complainant ii the present passive holding of the disputed domain names constitutes use in bad faith especially since the Respondents have taken steps to mask its identity through WhoIs privacy services and there is no plausible explanation for

to an active website The passive holding of a domain name does not show a legitimate use or bona fide offering of goods or services See Teachers Ins And Annuity Ass'n of Am v Wreaks Commc'ns Group D2006-0483 WIPO June 15 2006 passive holding

to this proceeding and by passively holding the domain names   B Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding   FINDINGS Complainant has established all the elements entitling it to relief   DISCUSSION Paragraph 15 a of

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

previous UDRP panels is that passive holding in itself does not preclude a finding of bad faith UDRP panels must examine all the circumstances of the case to determine whether a respondent is acting in bad faith See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel

context of the principles of passive holding Section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 explains that from the inception of the UDRP panels have found that the non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of

pages The Panel finds that passive holding of the disputed domain names which incorporate a distinctive trademark without a legitimate purpose does not prevent a finding that the disputed domains name are being used in bad faith under paragraph

of a given case including passive holding in making its bad faith analysis.  See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows Case No D2000-0003 WIPO Feb 18 2000 after considering all the circumstances of a given case it is possible that

concludes that Respondent's passive holding of the domain name does not establish rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4 a ii   Finally the Panel detects no evidence in the record to suggest that Respondent James Robinson or his

names are currently inactive Passive holding does not prevent a finding of bad faith The Panel finds that the above constitutes registration and use in bad faith pursuant to the third requirement of paragraph 4 a of the Policy 7 Decision For the

implausible Thus the current passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith see e.g Abbott Diabetes Care Inc v Privacy Protection Hosting Ukraaine LLC / Ð'италий Броцман Vitalii Brocman WIPO Case

contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith Examples of what may be cumulative circumstances found to be indicative of bad faith include cases in which i the Complainant has a well-known trademark