contends that Respondent s passive holding is bad faith and that Respondent has configured the Domain name for email use and further that Respondent has no legitimate rights to the Disputed Domain Name the only reasonable conclusion is that

that the Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name and the disputed domain name has not been used for 18 years The Respondent did not make any use of the disputed domain name since the registration and it was confirmed by the

that the Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain names and the disputed domain names do not resolve to any active website The Respondent did not make any use of disputed domain names since the registration and it confirms that

UDRP panels will apply the passive holding doctrine by taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances of a specific case as outlined in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 In the present case

hence can be treated as being passively held does not prevent a finding of bad faith registration and use Indeed a passive holding of a domain name can support a finding of bad faith UDRP panels must examine all the circumstances of the case

it Here there is only passive holding It does not help This places this case firmly in the impersonation zone Therefore the Panel finds that as there is no use the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed

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

�domain names finding even passive holding to be bad faith use as any future use of such domain names would remain confusingly similar to the BOBCAT mark � � Finally Respondent registered sandozlabs.com knowing that Complainant had trademark

Secondly the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name is considered to be a proof of bad faith The Respondent did not use the disputed domain name for almost 17 years In addition the lack of response to several contact attempts

recognizes that inaction e.g passive holding in relation to a disputed domain name registration can in certain circumstances constitute a domain name being used in bad faith see Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No

KIMLEY-HORN Mark Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name demonstrates bad-faith use Complainant s Mark has a strong reputation and has been in continuous use for 53 years Respondent has made no use of the disputed domain name and

would like to mention the passive holding doctrine in this occasion explained as follows While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding

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

Finally Complainant cites the passive holding doctrine first articulated in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 B Respondent As noted above Respondent sent an email to the Center on December 7 2020 at 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 On January 7 2020 the Respondent sent an email to

is well-established that the passive holding of a domain name does not constitute a legitimate noncommercial use see e.g Skyscanner Limited v Marko Nikolic WIPO Case No DNL2020-0004 noting the fact that the Domain Name does not resolve to an

passiva de um nome domínio passive holding pode caracterizar a má-fé desde que acompanhada de outros elementos ou padrões de conduta que legitimem essa conclusão ver WorldwidePants Inc v VisionLink Communications Group Inc Caso OMPI No

it in any demonstrable manner Passive holding or non-use of a domain name is in appropriate circumstances evidence of a lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name concerned In terms of bad faith the Complainant notes that

smartcode.design domain name passively Browsing to the at-issue domain name returns an error message lacking substantive content.� Respondent's passive holding of smartcode.design is indicative of neither a bona fide offering of goods or services

been used in bad faith due to passive holding by the Respondent As detailed in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 evidence of passive holding of a domain name does not on its own constitute bad faith use A