of the disputed domain name Passive holding does not prevent a finding of bad faith use In the present case the trademark has a high degree of distinctiveness or reputation the Respondent has failed to provide any evidence of actual or

Complainant argues that the passive holding or non-use of domain names is in appropriate circumstances evidence of a lack of rights or legitimate interests in the domain names Finally with regard to the disputed domain name having been registered

SARL Victoire Investissement Holding SARL v Long Li Li Long Case No D2020-3354 1 The Parties The Complainants are Sonia Rykiel Création Paris the First Complainant France Cambon Financière SARL the Second Complainant Luxembourg and Victoire

accordingly they are being passively held The Complainant alleges that such passive holding is evidence of a lack of rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names see American Home Products Corporation v Ben Malgioglio WIPO Case

accordingly they are being passively held The Complainant alleges that such passive holding is evidence of a lack of rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names see American Home Products Corporation v Ben Malgioglio WIPO Case

accordingly they are being passively held The Complainant alleges that such passive holding is evidence of a lack of rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names see American Home Products Corporation v Ben Malgioglio WIPO Case

accordingly they are being passively held The Complainant alleges that such passive holding is evidence of a lack of rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names see American Home Products Corporation v Ben Malgioglio WIPO Case

accordingly they are being passively held The Complainant alleges that such passive holding is evidence of a lack of rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names see American Home Products Corporation v Ben Malgioglio WIPO Case

active but was regarded as passive holding by the panel It is reasonable to infer that the Respondent is a cybersquatter Similarly the disputed domain name has no real content and its only goal is to damage the Complainant s rights B Respondent

contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith Examples of what may be circumstances found to be indicative of bad faith include that no response to the complaint has been filed Furthermore in

with the Complainant that passive holding can constitute registration and use in bad faith but the use of a parking site with sponsored links and searches is a step beyond passive holding While the Panel agrees that the registration of a

disputed domain name is being passively held Under certain circumstances the passive holding of a domain name cannot prevent a finding of bad faith Factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include i the

the Respondent s passive holding of the Domain Name amounts to use of the Domain Name in bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not formally reply to the Complainant s contentions however sent an administrative response on January

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 very

disputed domain name and 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

Currently the Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name Passive holding cannot prevent a finding of bad faith under some given circumstances such as without limitation i when the complainant s trademark is distinctive or well known

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

bajo la doctrina del passive holding véase en este sentido la sección 3.3 de la Sinopsis elaborada por la OMPI 3.0 y también es conveniente precisar que a los efectos del Reglamento y de la Política no es requisito la obtención de un

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

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