faith under the doctrine of passive holding Factors considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant s mark the failure of the respondent to submit any evidence of

s non-use and apparent passive holding of the disputed domain name does not preclude a finding of bad faith in the overall circumstances of the case particularly given the distinctiveness and renown of the Complainant s FACEBOOK mark and its

change the above conclusion Passive holding of the disputed domain does not preclude a finding of bad faith nor does it detract from the Respondent s bad faith as it has been established in prior UDRP decisions e.g Koç Holding A.S v KEEP B.T

paragraph have held such passive holding of the disputed domain name satisfies the requirement of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy that the disputed domain name is being used in bad faith See Marina Yachting S.p.A v Bonaparte Hotel Group WIPO

falls into the category of passive holding b the Complainant tried to reach the Respondent by a cease-and-desist letter sent on November 6 2020 to the Respondent s e-mail as provided in the WHOIS and to the online form https //gdpr-masked.com

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 submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated

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

the Respondent s current passive holding of the disputed domain name cannot prevent a finding of bad faith since the disputed domain name incorporates a well-known registered trademark without a legitimate purpose Considering the reputation of

passive holding ）不会影� �� 家组对于争议域名恶意使� �的认定（参见Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows，WIPO 案件编号

bad faith use pursuant to the passive holding doctrine The reputation of the trademark VEOLIA is high The Respondent has failed to provide actual or contemplated good-faith use There is concealment of the registrant identity on the WhoIs of 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 In addition the Panel finds that the changes the Respondent made to its website

the Respondent is making a passive holding of the disputed domain name Section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions Third Edition sets out the factors that have been considered relevant by previous panels in

UDRP panels have found the passive holding of a domain name still amounts to use in bad faith See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 see also Siemens AG v yinsi baohu yi kai qi Hidden by Whois Privacy

Domain Name has not been used Passive holding of a Domain Name containing a trade mark with a reputation can evidence registration and use in bad faith under the Policy See Indiana University v Ryan G Foo / PPA Media Services FA1411001588079 Forum

appears to be inactive The passive holding of a domain name may amount to bad faith when it is difficult to imagine any plausible future active use of a domain name by the respondent that would be legitimate and would not interfere with the

s argument that Respondent s passive holding of the Domain Name may constitute bad faith pursuant to the seminal decision in Telstra Corp v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 the Panel rejects this argument The Telstra decision is

is at this time making a passive use of the disputed domain name Section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions Third Edition sets out the factors that have been considered relevant by previous UDRP panels in

the circumstances constitutes passive holding of the website in bad faith Complainant requests the transfer of the Domain Name B Respondent The Center has not received a Response 6 Discussion and Findings The Panel notes that in accordance with

such the Panel finds that the passive holding of the lovepopup.com and loverpopcards.com Domain Names does not prevent a finding of use in bad faith Accordingly the Panel finds that the Respondent has registered and used the Domain Names in bad

18 2000 � � I naction eg passive holding in relation to a domain name registration can in certain circumstances constitute a domain name being used in bad faith.���� � See also Regions Bank v Darla atkins FA 1786409 Forum June 20 2018 �