by the Respondent and its passive holding likely in the aim of fraudulent uses are for the purpose of commercial gain and then constitute bad faith registration and use B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions

faith under the doctrine of passive holding 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 i

alluding to the concept of passive holding and a chaser on January 27 2021 to which the Respondent did not respond 5 Parties Contentions A Complainant The following is a summary of the Complainant s contentions The Complainant s trade mark is

which constitutes bad faith passive holding Finally the Complainant asserts the Respondent is engaging in a pattern of registering domain names that misappropriates well-known trademarks which further demonstrates bad faith registration and use

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

site is clearly inactive.  Passively holding a confusingly similar domain name is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4 c i nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4

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

submits that the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain names does not give rise to any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names on the part of the Respondent In the present case there is no evidence of the disputed

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 In particular the consensus view of WIPO UDRP panellists is

objet d une simple détention passive ou en anglais « passive holding » pratique toujours condamnée spécialement quand est incluse dans le nom de domaine litigieux une marque fortement distinctive sans but légitime apparent et lorsque le

s use otherwise constitute passive holding of the disputed domain names Complainant also notes that it sent a cease and desist letter to Respondent on March 30 2021 but that Respondent gave no response According to Complainant Respondent is

faith is justified under the passive holding doctrine on the facts here B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4 a of the Policy stipulates that the Complainant must prove the

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 Finally the default of the Respondent in the present circumstances further reinforce

Complainant asserts that such passive use of these domain names and is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy paragraph 4 c i nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy paragraph 4 c iii Complainant

active website and that such passive use of the Domain Name and is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy paragraph 4 c i nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy paragraph 4 c iii Complainant

the Respondent s holding of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith use of it under the doctrine of passive holding see Johnson & Johnson v Daniel Wistbacka WIPO Case No D2017-0709 and the factors set out therein B Respondent

page According to the Panel a passive holding of the disputed domain name may amount to bad faith when it is difficult to imagine any plausible future active use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent that would be legitimate and not

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

submits that the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes abuse and as such does not preclude a finding of bad faith citing Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The Complainant

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