hold the at issue domain name passively Respondent's passive holding of the hobbylobbyhr.com domain name indicates Respondent's bad faith under Policy � 4 a iii See Dermtek Pharmaceuticals Ltd v Sang Im / Private Registration FA1310001522801 Forum

conclusion that Respondent's passive holding of the bitmain.jpn.com domain name is evidence of bad faith use of it when considered in light of Respondent's efforts to conceal its identity in registering the domain name as well as that it is

faith under the doctrine of passive holding Factors that panelists take into account whilst looking at all the circumstances include i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant s mark ii the failure of the respondent to

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

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 evidenced by its use of a privacy service to

currently is not being used passively holding a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith registration and use Moreover the Respondent currently holds registrations for several other domain names that incorporate the trademarks of

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

use of these domain names The passive holding of a disputed domain name typically does not demonstrate a�bona fide�offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy �� 4 c i or iii See Morgan Stanley v Francis

name followed by inaction or passive holding constitutes bad faith use of the domain name See Phat Fashions LLC v Kruger FA 96193 Forum Dec 29 2000 finding bad faith under Policy � 4 b iv even though the respondent has not used the domain name

for unlawful purposes passive holding of disputed domain name evidence of bad faith For these reasons the Panel finds bad faith registration and use and Complainant has met its burden under paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy 7 Decision For the

the Respondent s passive holding of the Domain Name amounts to use of the Domain Name in bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings A Identical or Confusingly Similar

alleges that Respondent is passively holding the Domain Name and thus Respondent has not used the Domain Name in connection with the bona fide offering of goods or services With respect to the third element of the Policy for the following

circumstances of inaction passive holding other than those identified in paragraphs 4 b i ii and iii can constitute a domain name being used in bad faith concluding that the question can only be answered in respect of the particular facts of a

similar domain name simply by holding such domain name passively is not indicative of a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy � 4 c i nor of a non-commercial or fair use under Policy � 4 c iii See CrossFirst Bankshares Inc v Yu-Hsien

leads to any active site Such passive holding of a domain name containing a well-known earlier trademark is a clear indication of bad faith In registering the disputed domain name the Respondent had knowledge or at any rate exercised a willful

use under the doctrine of passive holding As first considered in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include i the degree

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 does not

faith under the doctrine of passive holding See section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 The Respondent s use of a privacy service to hide its identity is under the circumstances of this case further evidence of bad faith The Panel concludes that the

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 bad faith within the requirements of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy.� See Telstra Corporation Limited v

pointing to the Registrar s holding page since its registration in 2010 Complainant argues 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