underlined by the Complainant passive holding can evidence bad faith registration and use Consequently the Panel considers that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith according to Policy paragraph 4 a iii E

view that the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name to an inactive website constitutes bad faith and is indicative of the Respondent s registration and use of the disputed domain name to attract Internet users to his website

being used by the Respondent Passive holding or non-use of the disputed domain name supports a finding of bad faith under the Policy when the Complainant has demonstrated that the KHADI mark is distinctive and the Respondent has failed to provide

Panels have discussed the passive holding of a domain names e.g in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and found that the passive holding itself can constitute bad faith use The Panel recalls that „the

contact the trademark 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 See also the Telstra Corporation

over the years and such a passive holding of the Domain Name in this case constitutes bad faith taking into consideration the overall context of the Respondent s behavior see Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No

Complainants allege that the passive holding or non-use of the disputed domain name by Respondent and seemingly false contact details used in the WhoIs are evidence of bad faith registration and use B Respondent Respondent did not reply to the

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

the trade mark of another Passive holding of a domain name containing a mark with a reputation can be bad faith registration and use See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows D2000-0003 WIPO Feb 18 2000 The Respondent has used a

notes in this connection that passive holding of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith use under paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy Procedural Factors The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and

faith under the doctrine of passive holding The totality of the circumstances in each case will be examined and factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include i the degree of distinctiveness or

its intention was at best a passive holding or bait and switch The Respondent s family business focuses on cooling systems and agricultural technology which are among the Complainant s core fields It is clear that the Respondent s use of the

objet d une simple détention passive passive holding dont on sait qu elle est condamnée par les commissions administratives UDRP Bien plus il semble bien selon les pièces fournies par le Requérant que le Défendeur a utilisé une adresse mail

the trade mark of another Passive holding of a domain name containing a mark with a reputation can be bad faith registration and use See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows D2000-0003 WIPO Feb 18 2000 � countryfinancail.com has

The Complainant cites the passive holding doctrine Against this background the Respondent is � at least � engaged in bad faith passive holding of the disputed domain name in the sense of ‘WIPO Overview 3.0 see Section 3.3 and of paragraph 4

resides In addition the passive holding of a domain name does not constitute the bad faith use in the circumstance when its mark is neither distinctive nor widely known The word wedi is a common family name and not distinctive Thirdly unless

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 non-dictionary ARKEA trademarks as sufficiently distinctive so that any descriptive use of the

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

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 reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings A Identical or Confusingly Similar

established that the mere passive holding of a domain name may in appropriate circumstances be evidence not only of bad faith registration but also of bad faith use See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003