ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Holding Benjamin et Edmond De Rothschild Pregny Société Anonyme v Gibey Anne Case No D2021-1349 1 The Parties The Complainant is Holding Benjamin et Edmond De Rothschild Pregny Société Anonyme Switzerland

contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith see Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd v Whois Agent Whois Privacy Protection Service Inc / Jean-Paul Clozel WIPO Case No D2016-0068 Telstra Corporation Limited

notes that the so-called passive holding of a domain name cannot prevent a finding of bad faith In this present case the Complainant's trademark is distinctive the Respondent failed to respond to the Complaint and there seems no plausible good

faith under the doctrine of passive holding In fact the further circumstances surrounding the disputed domain name s registration and use confirm the findings that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith 1

web site i.e they have been passively held As established in a number of prior cases the concept of bad faith use in paragraph 4 b of the Policy includes not only positive action but also passive holding especially in cases of domain name

the domain that had been passive for many years all the sudden changed to note Something really cool is coming soon and offering a sale price of 200 000 for the domain which is a strong indicator of bad faith on the part of Respondent 5

have any active content a passive holding of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith in particular in consideration of the strong reputation and well-known character of the Complainant s marks the lack of evidence provided by the

faith under the doctrine of passive holding Factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant s mark and the failure of the respondent to

faith under the doctrine of passive holding see par 3.3 of WIPO Overview 3.0 and Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 One has to look at the circumstances of a case taking into account in particular 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

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

s letter of demand and passive holding of the disputed domain name also demonstrate the Respondent s bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not file a formal response to the Complainant s contentions However she sent a series of emails to

faith under the doctrine of passive holding It further states 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

faith under the doctrine of passive holding In its determination the Panel considered the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the Complainant s IBM mark as well as the Respondent s failure to respond in the face of the Complainant s

being used by the Respondent Passive holding or non-use of the disputed domain name supports a finding of bad faith under the Policy when the Complainant has demonstrated that its mark is distinctive and the Respondent has failed to provide any

Complainant s HMRC mark The passive holding of the disputed domain names which contain the Complainant s well-known HMRC trademark constitutes bad faith registration and use The use of the privacy service is also indicative of bad faith B

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 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

on the part of Respondent and passively holding a domain name can constitute a factor in finding bad faith registration and use pursuant to the Policy The disputed domain name can only be taken as intending to cause confusion among Internet users

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