of false contact details the passive holding of the Domain Name and the failure by the Respondent to participate in this proceeding or otherwise provide any explanation of its conduct in registering a domain name that combines the COLOPLAST Mark

in terms of the doctrine of passive holding The Complainant contends that the doctrine should apply given that the Complainant s mark is well-known and highly distinctive the Respondent uses a privacy shield the Domain Name is blatantly similar

use under the doctrine of passive holding see section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 in this respect the Panel takes into account in particular the failure of the Respondent to provide an explanation as to the reasons for its registration of 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 or

domain name as well as the passive holding of the disputed domain name all show that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith In lack of any Response from the Respondent or any other information indicating 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 / Ð'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 In the circumstances of this case the Panel finds that such passive holding amounts to

faith under the doctrine of passive holding While panellists 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

fair use because Respondent passively holds the domain name Inactive holding of a disputed domain name is generally not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use See Thermo Electron Corp v Xu FA

It is commonly referred to as passive holding Whilst it is true that the passive holding of a domain name may in appropriate circumstances be indicative of bad faith It will only be so indicative when all the circumstances of the Respondent's

activities suggest either passive holding or possibly fraudulent activities following Monster Energy Company v Nikita Serov serovagency WIPO Case No D2020-2265 with respect to monster-energy.uno The Complainant submits further that the Disputed

faith under the doctrine of passive holding See section 3.3 WIPO Overview 3.0 Therefore on the balance of probabilities taking into consideration all cumulative circumstances of this case the Panel considers that the disputed domain name was very

website template is a form of passive holding or non-use to which the passive holding doctrine may apply The Respondent registered or acquired the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling it to the Complainant or its competitor for

it is well-established that passive holding of a domain name could amount to bad faith under certain circumstances including the prior use of the domain name made by the registrant and the correspondence of the disputed domain name to a

content can be regarded as passive holding Instagram LLC v Masaki Shishino WIPO Case No D2019-2096 and Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel v Malo Corentine WIPO Case No D2018-1844 being the Respondent s bad faith inferred since i the

also satisfy the doctrine of passive holding B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4 a of the Policy provides that in order to be entitled to a transfer of the disputed

faith under the doctrine of passive holding See section 3.3 of WIPO Overview 3.0 Considering that the Panel has found that the Complainant s trademark is well known the Respondent has not responded to the Complaint there are no obvious good faith

domain name is currently passively held Previous UDRP panels have considered under the doctrine of passive holding that the non-use of a domain would not prevent a finding of bad faith see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP

of the respondent Instead passively holding a domain name can constitute a factor in finding bad faith registration and use Complainant further submits that previous UDRP panels have concluded that evidence of prior panel decisions in which

under the doctrine called as passive holding Factors that have been considered 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