to an inactive page a passive holding does not preclude a finding of the use in bad faith Moreover the Complainant submits that there might be a risk that the Respondent is engaged in a phishing scheme since an email server has been

that the Respondent s current passive holding of the Domain Name can constitute a factor in finding bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy The Complainant requests that the Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant B Respondent 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 / �'италий Броцман Vitalii Brocman WIPO Case

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 When the Panel visited the disputed domain names it resolved to passive pages and the

use as Respondent is merely passively holding the disputed domain name � iii Finally Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith as Respondent is inactively holding the disputed domain name Additionally the disputed

regard the Panel finds that holding a domain name passively without making any use of it also does not confer any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name on the Respondent see in this regard earlier UDRP decisions such as

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

supplies which constitutes passive holding later it resolved to an active website offering medical instruments which was closely related to the Complainant and its business activities and using the term Novartis in its logo to confuse Internet

for a finding of bad faith passive holding are satisfied in this case See WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 Indeed the Respondent who is domiciled in France is presumed to have full knowledge of the Complainant s trade marks this is confirmed by the

Domain Name has not been used Passive holding can evidence registration and use in bad faith under the Policy in these circumstances See Indiana University v Ryan G Foo / PPA Media Services FA1411001588079 Forum Dec 28 2014 Under the circumstances

claims that the Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain names in bad faith which does not confer any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names to the Respondent On the basis of the above arguments the

faith under the doctrine of passive holding The Complaint demonstrates that there is no other reason for the use and registration of the disputed domain names than to take advantage of the fame of the Complainant s trademarks with the intent to

this case and the doctrine of passive holding See WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 and section 3.2.1 In fact the current passive holding of the disputed domain name is further evidence of the Respondent s bad faith registration and use Finally it is

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

for its use This is a case of passive holding Panels have consistently held that passive holding of domain names can under certain circumstances be considered bad faith use of the domain name Malayan Banking Berhad v Beauty Success and Truth

by the Respondent amounts to passive holding of the disputed domain name which does not confer any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name

faith under the doctrine of passive holding The factors that panels have considered relevant in determining if a passive holding of a domain name amounts to use in bad faith include the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant s

name is currently inactive Passive holding does not preclude a finding of bad faith Given the Complainant s goodwill and renown worldwide and the nature of the disputed domain name which is confusingly similar to the Complainant s trademark it

with regard to Respondent's passive holding of the other domain names see for example CrossFirst Bankshares Inc v Yu-Hsien Huang FA 1785415 Forum�June 6 2018 � Complainant demonstrates that Respondent fails to actively use the disputed domain

faith under the doctrine of passive holding However in order to establish passive holding in bad faith it is necessary to establish that the reputation of the Complainant is such that the application for the registration of disputed domain name