in UDRP decisions that the passive or inactive holding of a domain name that incorporates registered trademarks without a legitimate Internet purpose may indicate that the domain name is being used in bad faith Furthermore the Respondent has

faith under the doctrine of passive holding Therefore the Panel finds that paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy is satisfied in favor of the Complainant 7 Decision For the foregoing reasons in accordance with paragraphs 4 i of the Policy and 15 of the

legitimate rights or interest Passive holding of a disputed domain name incorporating a third-party well-known mark does not normally amount to a bona fide use It is well established that inaction or passive holding can in certain circumstances

faith within the concept of passive holding first articulated in Telstra Corp v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 On the record here and given the renown of the TATA mark and Complainant s extensive communications services operation

faith under the doctrine of passive holding See section 3.3 WIPO Overview 3.0 In light of the above taking into consideration all cumulative facts and circumstances of this case on the balance of probabilities the Panel considers that the

WIPO Overview 3.0 considers passive holding 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 i the degree of

and use under the doctrine of passive holding see WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 See also DCI S.A v Link Commercial Corp WIPO Case No D2000-1232 which concluded that the respondent s passive holding of the domain name satisfies the requirement of

on the Internet so-called passive holding however many UDRP panels have recognized that the mere registration of a domain name even one that is comprised of a confirmed dictionary word or phrase may not of itself confer rights or legitimate

inactive The current passive holding of the disputed domain name further suggests bad faith of the Respondent in the circumstances of this case See also WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 Another factor that corroborates a finding of bad faith

and use under the doctrine of passive holding see WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 See DCI S.A v Link Commercial Corp WIPO Case No D2000-1232 which concluded that the respondent s passive holding of the domain name satisfies the requirement of

hence can be treated as being passively held does not prevent a finding of bad faith registration and use One cannot ignore past use and in any event a passive holding of a domain name can support a finding of bad faith UDRP panels must examine all

Finally inactive or passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name by the Respondent may amount to bad faith use See Advance Magazine Publishers Inc and Les Publications Condé Nast S.A v ChinaVogue.com WIPO Case No D2005-0615 Société pour

faith under the doctrine of passive holding The Panel must examine all the circumstances of the case to determine whether the Respondent is acting in bad faith Examples of what may be relevant circumstances found to be indicative of bad faith

of goods or services 4 passive holding of the disputed domain names does not establish rights or legitimate interests 5 the disputed domain names incorporating directly the subject trademark reflect Respondent s intention to create an

the disputed domain name is passively held While passive holding is not conclusive that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests the unusual combination of words forming the domain name and the global presence of the Complainant in this

use under the doctrine of passive holding As first considered in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Telstra factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include i

which held that t he current passive holding or non-use of the disputed domain name under these conditions does not establish any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name In light of the foregoing the Panel finds that the

circumstances under which the passive holding of a domain will be considered to be a bad faith registration While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case factors that have been considered relevant in applying the

searching for Complainant by holding itself out as the Complainant or as an entity that is competing with the Complainant which causes a disruption of the Complainant s business The Complainant adds that the Respondent s current passive holding of

the Panel finds that the passive holding of the disputed domain name in the circumstances of the case does not prevent a finding of bad faith registration and use Finally on the balance of probability a further circumstance supporting the bad