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

by the Respondent amounts to passive holding of the disputed domain name which it claims does not confer any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name Furthermore the Complainant claims that the Respondent has

in UDRP decisions that the passive holding of a domain name that incorporates a well-known trademark does not prevent a finding of bad faith use within the requirements of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear

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 see WIPO Overview 3.0 paragraph 3.3 The test to apply is that of the totality of circumstances In doing so we must look to i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant s mark ii the

trademark Also the passive holding of the disputed domain name with presumed knowledge of the corresponding trademark rights of the Complainant indicates that the Respondent has registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith

domain names are each passively held.� Respondent's domain names address blank webpages Respondent's passive holding of the at-issue domain names constitutes neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor legitimate noncommercial or

that the Domain Name is passively held as it does not resolve to an active webpage and that there is no evidence that Respondent has ever used the Domain Name to host an active website Complainant argues that such passive holding can neither

faith under the doctrine of passive holding Section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 Having considered the reputation of the Complainant s mark OSRAM and the failure of the Respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of bona fide use

has demonstrated bad faith by passive holding of the disputed domain name 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 Overview 3.0

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

the Respondent s bad faith Passive holding under the appropriate circumstances including the international fame of the Complainant and its trademarks and the offer of a domain name for sale are indicative of bad faith under the Policy

such use may constitute a passive holding that has been constantly regarded as an indication of bad faith use According to the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions Third Edition WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.4 the use of a

is a consensus view about passive holding From the inception of the UDRP panelists have found that the non-use of a domain name including a blank or ‘coming soon page would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive

name the Panel notes that the passive holding of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith See WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 Rather the change in use further supports an inference of bad faith Moreover prior panels have held that the

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 The Respondent s bad faith is also affirmed by the lack of response to correspondence

the Respondent constitutes a passive holding that has been constantly regarded as an indication of bad faith use The previous UDRP panels have found that the the bad faith behavior of the Respondent results clearly of its lack of response to the

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 see WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 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

names 1-4 is similar to passive holding should not prevent a finding of bad faith For the disputed domain names 5 and 6 which are being used to redirect Internet users to parking pages displaying sponsored links the Complainant states the