WIPO Overview 3.0 considers passive holding by a respondent and explains that 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

fall within the doctrine of passive holding and the principles set out initially in the decision of Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 These principles are also of application not only to inactive websites

in this case to Respondent s passive holding of the Domain Names monabankinter.com and monacreditbank.com Further these factors can be combined with the following supplemental circumstances which strengthen a finding of passive holding in bad

and considers that such passive holding of the disputed domain name by Respondent amounts to use in bad faith According to previous UDRP panel decisions such passive holding may indeed amount to bad faith use in certain circumstances See In

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

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

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

similar domain name passively as browsing to either domain name returns an error message �Respondent's passive holding of� loandepotpark.com and loandepotstadium.com is not indicative of either a�bona fide�offering of goods or services

considers the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name to amount to bad faith use of it 7 Decision For the foregoing reasons in accordance with paragraphs 4 i of the Policy and 15 of the Rules the Panel orders that the disputed

faith under the doctrine of passive holding see section 3.3 of WIPO Overview 3.0 and Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 considers passive holding and explains that While

FORUM DECISION � Enterprise Holdings Inc v faith casto / gegety inc Claim Number FA2103001936989 � PARTIES Complainant is Enterprise Holdings Inc Complainant represented by Hadi S Al-Shathir of Thompson Coburn LLP Missouri USA.� Respondent is

the Respondent s apparent passive holding of the disputed domain name amounts to use of the disputed domain name in bad faith The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith The Complainant has

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

this present case.� Moreover passive holding of a domain name is evidence that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.� See United Servs Auto Ass'n v Savchenko FA 1105728 Forum Dec 12 2007 The disputed domain name

in bad faith through its passive holding of the disputed domain name � B Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding � FINDINGS 1 Complainant is a United States company that is a designer manufacturer and seller of

of bad faith under the passive holding doctrine see e.g Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Having considered the totality of the circumstances the reasons for this include most compellingly i the

of this case Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name qualifies as use in bad faith Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The Panel thus finds that the disputed domain name was registered and

amounts to substantive use Passive holding can itself amount to bad faith registration and use where the holding involves a domain name deliberately chosen because of its association with the Complainant See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear

faith under the doctrine of passive holding including 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 good-faith

PANEL DECISION Rivian IP Holdings LLC v Perfect Privacy LLC / Kelvin Jung Case No D2020-3304 1 The Parties The Complainant is Rivian IP Holdings LLC United States of America United States represented by Coates IP United States of America The