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 ps5-shop.us called passive holding   Because Respondent makes no active use of these domain names it cannot be said to use any of them in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services within the contemplation of Policy ¶ 4 c

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

submits that by its passive holding the Respondent is using the disputed domain names in bad faith v The Complainant requests that the disputed domain names be transferred to the Complainant B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to

the Complainant Furthermore passive holding of a domain name results in a bad faith use in the light of the circumstances of the case particularly since the CANVA trademark of the Complainant is well-known The use of the term email in conjunction

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

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

is currently inactively holding the domain name   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 the Rules

Complainant contends that the passive holding of the disputed domain qualifies as bad faith registration and use B Respondent The Respondent asserts to have rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name since the latter was

decisions confirmed that the passive holding of a domain name with knowledge that the domain name infringes another party s trademark rights is evidence of bad faith registration and use WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and also the panels consensus view

of this case the Respondent s passive holding of the Domain Names supports the finding of bad faith As numerous UDRP panels have held passive holding under the totality of circumstances of the case can constitute a bad faith use under the Policy

an active website The current passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith See section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 Rather the change in use further supports an inference of bad faith Accordingly the Panel

well established that passive holding does not necessarily shield a respondent from a finding of bad faith See WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 which notes that the non-use of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith Rather a

Finally 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

relevant in 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 submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated

an active website The current passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith See section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 Rather the change in use further supports an inference of bad faith Accordingly the Panel

mark the registration and passive holding of the subject domain name by Respondent who has no connection with the Complainant supports a finding of bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6

decisions confirmed that the passive holding of a domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use 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

faith under the doctrine of passive holding when circumstances exist such as the distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant s mark the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good

of bad faith Regarding the passive holding of the disputed domain name by Respondent Complainant relies that the non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding Besides Complainant puts