as the domain name and passive holding cannot prevent a finding of bad faith when all the general circumstances of the case show bad faith of the Respondent as in the case at issue For all reasons mentioned above the Panel finds that the

use under the doctrine of passive holding see Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 As considered in the referred decision some relevant factors must be considered in applying the passive holding doctrine

error page which constitutes passive holding and may be interpreted as use in bad faith Additionally the Complainant tried to reach the Respondent by sending a cease & desist letter on 25 August 2021 by e-mail to the address provided in the WHOIS

Forum Sept 7 2021 holding that a respondent's passive holding of a domain name where the domain name resolves to a message that states This page isn't working does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services nor for a

faith under the doctrine of passive holding 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 relevant circumstances found to be indicative of bad faith

No D2021-0820 The current passive holding of the disputed domain name does not absolve the Respondent of bad faith registration and use and in fact under the circumstances of this case is further evidence of bad faith registration and use See

absence of use the passive holding of a domain name would also be an indication of a bad faith registration The fact for the Respondent to not have answered to the cease and desist letters sent by the Complainant prior to these

name has since inception been passive Section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions Third Edition WIPO Overview 3.0 sets out the factors that have been considered relevant by previous UDRP panels in determining

use under the doctrine of passive holding see WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 The Panel concludes that Respondent has attempted or is attempting to attract Internet users for commercial gain to the website of Respondent through the likelihood of

use Thus the Respondent is holding the disputed domain names passively It has long been generally held in UDRP decisions that the passive holding of a domain name that incorporates a well-known trademark without obvious use for an Internet

that the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes use in bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings A Identical or Confusingly Similar The

noncommercial or fair use Passive holding of the Domain Name containing a famous mark is bad faith registration and use under the Policy B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings A

faith under the doctrine of passive holding Section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 further states While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding

briefly with the doctrine of passive holding A passive holding or non-use of a domain name can support a finding of bad faith As section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 states panels must look at the totality of the circumstances in each case and

The Domain Name appears to be passively held Passive holding itself would not cure the Respondent s bad faith given the overall circumstances here specifically the renown of the Complainant s MD FONSCARE trade mark especially in the country where

faith under the doctrine of passive holding Previous UDRP panels have held that the passive holding of a domain name that incorporates a well‑known trademark may confirm the bad faith use of a disputed domain name see Telstra Corporation

Complainant points out the passive holding of the disputed domain name in the face of a trademark as well-known as the MICHELIN trademark constitutes use in bad faith under the Policy See e.g Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows

faith under the doctrine of passive holding and the use to send phishing email is evidence of bad faith see sections 3.3 and 3.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 Under these circumstances the Panel therefore finds that the Respondent registered and is

faith under the doctrine of passive holding The totality of the circumstances in each case will be examined and factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include i the degree of distinctiveness or

D2000-0003 it points out that passive holding can amount to bad faith Finally it contends that the registration of the Disputed Domain Name in the name of one of the Complainant s employees indicates that the Respondent is up to no good B