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 when circumstances exist such as the distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant s mark the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good

faith under the doctrine of passive holding WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 In addition to the circumstances referred to above Respondent s failure to file a response is further indicative of Respondent s bad faith Accordingly the Panel finds that

contact the trade mark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith 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 cumulative

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

of a given case including passive holding in making its bad faith analysis.  See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows Case No D2000-0003 WIPO Feb 18 2000 after considering all the circumstances of a given case it is possible that

and the concept of passive holding may or may not rise to the level of bad faith use See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The facts and circumstances here support a finding of bad faith use due

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

domain name for opportunistic passive holding In the circumstances the Panel concludes that the Complainant has established the requirement of paragraph 4 a ii of the Policy with respect to the disputed domain name C Registered and Used in Bad

Corporation of America Holdings v Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico Claim Number FA2102001931825   PARTIES Complainant is Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings Complainant represented by David K Caplan of Kilpatrick

has registered and by its passive holding is using the disputed domain name in bad faith iv The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s

of bad faith use Applying the passive holding doctrine as summarized in section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 the Panel assesses the Complainant s trademark ONLYFANS as sufficiently distinctive particularly considering its rising recognition and

AG une société suisse holding du groupe Novartis l un des plus grands groupes pharmaceutiques au niveau mondial titulaire de plusieurs enregistrements pour les marques NOVARTIS parmi lesquels marque internationale NOVARTIS No 663765

or to engage in phishing The passive holding of the disputed domain name without resolving to a website or resolving to a blank page does not absolve the Respondent from a finding of use in bad faith The Complainant has cited previous decisions

faith under the doctrine of passive holding as stated in section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 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 Domain Name

faith under the doctrine of passive holding As first considered in Telstra supra 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

is effectively engaged in passive holding of the disputed domain name within the terms originally established by Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The panel in Telstra noted that the question as to which

Respondent's current passive holding of the disputed domain name evidences bad faith Finally Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in its BETTER BUSINESS BUREAU mark when registering the disputed domain name   B

web store the current passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name does not prevent a finding of bad faith When viewing the totality of the circumstances mentioned in the preceding paragraphs it is difficult to imagine any plausible good