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

domain name a practice called passive holding   Because Respondent makes no active use of the domain name it cannot be said to use it in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services within the contemplation of Policy ¶ 4 c ii   See for

of a given case including passive holding in making its bad faith analysis.  See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows Case No D2000-0003 WIPO Feb 18 2000 after considering all the circumstances of a given case it is possible that

contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith Examples of what may be cumulative circumstances found to be indicative of bad faith include cases in which i the Complainant has a well-known trademark

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

Panel adds that the current passive holding of the website does not prevent the Panel from finding registration and use in bad faith 7 Decision For the foregoing reasons in accordance with paragraphs 4 i of the Policy and 15 of the Rules the

website hence it is being passively held Such passive holding likewise cannot be considered as a bona fide offering of goods or services according to Complainant Respondent cannot credibly claim to be commonly known by the Domain Name given the

name is not being used This passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith taking into consideration the overall context of the Respondent s behaviour Given the fact that the Respondent registered or acquired the disputed

text too many requests The passive holding of the Domain Name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding After becoming aware of the Domain Name the Complainant s counsel contacted the Respondent to request

not rule out bad faith as passive holding of a domain name may constitute bad faith It is not possible to conceive of a plausible good-faith reason or logic for the Respondent to have registered the Domain Name Finally the Respondent s use of a

any website which constitutes passive holding and thus bad faith use since there is no evidence of any intent of the Respondent to use the disputed domain name nor of any beginning of such use and given that the Respondent could not be unaware of

under the Policy the holding of a domain name incorporating a well-known trademark without substantive use i.e passive holding does not preclude a finding of use in bad faith On the evidence the disputed domain name is found to have been

points to no website This passive holding of the domain indicates that the Respondent's lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name Summarised there is no evidence for any bona fide offer of goods or services or a

bad faith by registering and passively holding a disputed domain name is summarized at WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 as follows While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case factors that have been considered relevant

reference to the doctrine of passive holding which considers whether merely holding a domain name without active use might amount to bad faith use Whilst previous UDRP panels consider the totality of the circumstances in any given case applicable

on the doctrine of bad faith passive holding While its arguments are somewhat scarce in the opinion of this Panel the conditions for a finding of bad faith passive holding are satisfied in this case See WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 The Respondent

the Panel accepts that passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes use of the disputed domain name in bad faith see ARCELORMITTAL S.A v hardik korat 102381 CAC 2019-04-22 For the foregoing reasons the Panel finds 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

noncommercial or fair use   Passive holding of a Domain Name disrupts the Complainant's business and is indicative of bad faith use   B Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding   FINDINGS The Complainant is the owner

The Complainant argues passive holding of a domain name may in appropriate circumstances be consisted with a finding of bad faith but also that panels have tended to make such findings in circumstances in which for example a complainant s