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

for a commercial gain The passive holding of the disputed domain name corroborates the Respondent s bad faith The Respondent is the CEO of a marketing company Nahtek Inc providing online SEO services i.e strategies and practices aimed at

faith under the doctrine of passive holding See section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 Moreover the Respondent s use of a privacy service to hide its identity is in this context further evidence of bad faith For the reasons set out above the Panel

faith under the doctrine of passive holding As recorded in section 3.3 of WIPO Overview 3.0 while panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding

this Panel shares that the passive holding of a domain name with knowledge that the domain name infringes another party s trade mark rights may in itself be regarded as evidence of bad faith registration and use see for example WIPO Case No

domain name is inactive The passive holding of a domain name may amount to bad faith when it is difficult to imagine any plausible future active use of a domain name by the respondent that would be legitimate and would not interfere with the

name and may be engaged in passive holding of the disputed domain name The Panel notes that the Complainant has supplied examples of publicity regarding the launch of the Highsnobiety Gatezero retail store dated June and July 2021 that is very

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 3.0 section 3.3

domain name The current passive holding of the disputed domain name is further evidence of the Respondent s lack of rights or legitimate interests Furthermore as highlighted in section 2.5.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 the Panel finds that the

PANEL DECISION Medicover Holding Cyprus Limited v Ruslan Chervak TD Marketing Global Inc Case No D2021-2087 1 The Parties The Complainant is Medicover Holding Cyprus Limited Cyprus represented by Patpol Legal Piróg i Wspólnicy Sp k Poland

integra una condotta di c.d passive holding in cui la giurisprudenza internazionale nel caso a domini contenenti marchi anteriori noti individua un chiaro indice di malafede B Resistente Il Resistente non ha presentato alcuna Risposta 6 Motivi

with 1Api Gmbh Epik Inc Epik Holdings Inc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names.� 1Api Gmbh Epik Inc Epik Holdings Inc has verified that Respondent is bound by the 1Api Gmbh Epik Inc Epik Holdings Inc registration agreement

Panel notes that the current passive holding does not preclude a finding of bad faith see Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 In fact the further circumstances surrounding the disputed domain name s

through Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name and the fact that Respondent likely knew of Complainant s rights in the FINAL FOUR mark by registering the disputed domain name which includes Complainant s well known FINAL

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

in the Previous UDRP Cases Passive holding and fraudulent use are not legitimate or bona fide uses of a domain name The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names This is registration and use in bad faith with actual

faith under the doctrine of passive holding see section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 Moreover UDRP panels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar particularly domain names

the Domain Name save for its passive holding and no use therefore that could support a finding that it must have had the Complainant and its rights in the mark in mind at that time Although the Domain Name comprises the entirety of the Complainant

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.� 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