notes that the so-called passive holding of a domain name cannot prevent a finding of bad faith In this present case the Complainant's trademarks are distinctive the Respondent failed to respond to the Complaint and there seems no plausible

notes are shown This passive holding of the disputed domain names indicates that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names Summarised there is no evidence for a use of the disputed domain names for

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 WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 The Panel finds so under the circumstances of this case The Panel has reviewed all elements of this case and in particular the identity or confusing similarity of the

faith under the doctrine of passive holding due to several circumstances namely Complainant had registered its rights some years ago Respondent is presumed to have had knowledge of these rights Respondent has provided no evidence of actual or

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

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

incurring the Respondent in passive holding is that such situation also supports the finding for bad faith in registration and use of the disputed domain names � In regard to the doctrine of passive holding from the inception of the UDRP previous

similar domain name to remain passive may signal bad faith per Policy � 4 b iii See Hewlett-Packard Co v Martineau FA 95359 Forum Aug 30 2000 Respondent's failure to submit an assertion of good faith intent to use the domain name in addition to the

Names have not been used Passive holding of a domain name containing a trade mark with a reputation for no good reason is registration and use in bad faith The registration of domain names containing the Complainant's distinctive mark shows

that the so-called passive holding a domain name can constitute use for the purposes of the Policy See for example auDRP Overview 1.0 section 3.2 In the present case the use of the disputed domain name would appear likely to be in direct

The Respondent s non-use or passive holding of the Domain Name does not constitute bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use See e.g Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v David Weiss Weiss Ent WIPO Case No

website However Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name qualifies as use in bad faith in this case Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 In this regard the Panel notes the reputation of

faith under the doctrine of passive holding See WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 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

of bad faith under the passive holding doctrine See doctrine under Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The use and holding of the disputed domain name in the present matter also satisfies the bad faith

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

Complainant s rights and that passive holding can amount to bad faith use B Respondent The Respondent in an English language email to the Center stated that he would like to release the disputed domain name The Respondent did not reply to the

Response It is denied that passive holding of a domain name is Bad Faith In the matter of Veena Kumaravel v Daegu Law Auction WIPO Case No D2019-2508 it was stated that the Panel rejects Complainant s argument that Respondent s passive holding

faith under the doctrine of passive holding The Panel agrees that passive holding of a domain name incorporating a famous trademark constitutes use of the domain name in bad faith and the ignorance of the previous notice and the masking service

inactive It says that the holding amounts to passive holding in bad faith without any evident usage or purpose that previous UDRP and auDRP panels have already considered that passive holding of a disputed domain name can satisfy the