faith under the doctrine of passive holding see WIPO Overview 3.0 paragraph 3.3 The test to apply is that of the totality of circumstances In doing so we must look to i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant s mark ii the

distinctive signs The current passive holding of the disputed domain name is further evidence of the Respondent s lack of rights or legitimate interests Furthermore the Panel finds that the disputed domain name carries a risk of implied affiliation

in the Domain Name � Passive holding of a domain name containing a famous mark is registration and use in bad faith � B Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding � FINDINGS Complainant is the owner of the

this Panel shares that the passive holding of a domain name with knowledge that the domain name infringes another party s trademark rights may in itself be regarded as evidence of bad faith registration and use see for example WIPO Case No

bad faith because inter alia passively holding a domain name can constitute a factor in finding bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4 a iii where the Disputed Domain Name consists solely of Complainant s MIDDLEBY trademark with

disputed domain name has been passively held This Panel finds that on the balance of probabilities the passive holding of the disputed domain name by Respondent is evidence of registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith by

faith under the doctrine of passive holding See WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 all the more that this deactivation is very likely the consequence of the takedown notices sent by the Complainant to the Registrar and to the webhosting provider As a

bad faith by registering and passively holding a disputed domain name is summarised 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

is therefore engaged in passive holding of the disputed domain name because it hoped to capitalize on the reputation of the Complainant B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings

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

domain name is being held passively it is possible that a passive holding can amount to use in bad faith for example see Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The Complainant believes that the Respondent

where the doctrine of passive holding is outlined and the fact that the disputed domain name is not presently being used other for a default or parking page though at the time of this decision it appears as if a redirect to a page with

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 or

faith under the doctrine of passive holding See section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 Accordingly the Panel finds that Respondent has registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith and Complainant succeeds under the third element of

following The Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes here bad faith use and registration see section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 as well as a disruption of the Complainant s business under the paragraph 4 b iii of

faith under the doctrine of passive holding While panels 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

that there has been a passive holding in bad faith Section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 explains that from the inception of the UDRP panels have found that the non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the

that Respondent has been passively holding a domain name for over three months at the time of filing of this Complaint Citing American International Group Inc v Debra Speyer FA 422815 Forum Apr 7 2005 panel found no rights where respondent had

registration The Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name relxcn.com can constitute a factor in finding bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings A Identical or