PANEL DECISION Rivian IP Holdings LLC v Denis A Minkin Case No D2020-3341 1 The Parties The Complainant is Rivian IP Holdings LLC United States of America US or United States represented by Coates IP U.S The Respondent is Denis A Minkin

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

UDRP panels have held that passive holding of a domain name could amount to use in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy Factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include i the

implausible Thus the current passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith see e.g Abbott Diabetes Care Inc v Privacy Protection Hosting Ukraaine LLC / �'италий Броцман Vitalii Brocman WIPO Case

the disputed domain name and passive holding in circumstances here does not establish rights or legitimate interests Complainant alleges that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith because 1 in light of the

The disputed domain name is passively held and countless UDRP decisions confirm that passive holding of a domain name with knowledge that the domain name infringes another party s trademark rights is evidence of bad faith registration and use

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

of probabilities that the passive holding of the disputed domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use While it is not unreasonable that the Complainant might fear that the disputed domain name may be used as an e-mail address

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

finds that the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name saint-gobain-recherche.net also amounts to use of the disputed domain name in bad faith for the purpose of the Policy see WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 In all these

of its registration which passive holding is a form of use that prevents Complainant from reflecting its mark in a corresponding domain name persuade us that Respondent has registered and now uses the domain name in bad faith.��� � THE QUESTION

��The Panel finds so-called passive holding in bad faith and so finds registration in bad faith in line with the principles first enunciated in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows D2000-0003 WIPO Feb 18 2000 � The Panel finds

for its late Response and the passive holding of the disputed domain name the Panel finds in all the circumstances that the requisite element of bad faith has been made out The Panel considers it is inconceivable the Respondent was not aware of the

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

alludes to the doctrine of passive holding to support its claim for a finding of bad faith In doing so the Complainant relies upon previous WIPO UDRP panels most notably Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-003

since its registration which passive holding is a form of use that prevents Complainant from reflecting its mark in a corresponding domain name persuade us that Respondent has exhibited bad faith in the registration and use of the domain name.���

to an active website the passive holding of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith The presence of the Disputed Domain Name in the hands of Respondent poses an abusive threat hanging over the head of Complainant B Respondent

which found that that the passive holding of a domain name may constitute evidence of bad faith particularly where the trade mark in question is well-known Accordingly the Panel concludes that the Complainant has satisfied its burden of showing

faith under the doctrine of passive holding see WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 The Panel notes that a previous UDRP panel ordered the Disputed Domain Name fordplantasonora.com to be transferred to the Complainant having found confusingly

claims that the Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain names which does not confer any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names to the Respondent The Complainant also claims that the Respondent has engaged