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

name by Complainant and 4 passive holding of a disputed domain name in circumstances such as those present here where there is neither potential good faith use nor a justifying explanation constitutes bad faith Complainant requests the Panel to

the disputed domain name passively by way of offering it for sale Such a passive use of the disputed domain name is also revealing that the Respondent has no serious intent to use it for offering goods and services or promoting a noncommercial

and the Respondent s passive holding of the Domain Name leads to a finding of bad faith squarely within the meaning of the Policy The Domain Name was selected in knowledge of the Complainant s mark and brand and further the Domain Name was

Domain Name has not been used Passive holding can evidence registration and use in bad faith under the Policy See Indiana University v Ryan G Foo / PPA Media Services FA1411001588079 Forum Dec 28 2014 Under the circumstances Respondent's seemingly

use under the doctrine of passive holding As explained at section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive

the Complainant s passive holding of the disputed domain name and its general offer for sale constitutes bad faith registration and use for the purposes of the Policy The Complainant has therefore succeeded in the third and final

this Panel shares that the passive holding of a domain name with knowledge that the domain name infringes another party s trade mark rights may in itself be regarded as evidence of bad faith registration and use see for example WIPO Case No

outlined above the passive holding of the disputed domain name amounts to the Respondent acting in bad faith a well-established doctrine under the UDRP and under the Policy See for example Telstra v Nuclear Marshmellows WIPO Case No

It is well established that passive holding of a domain name could amount to bad faith under certain circumstances as decided i.a in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 In the case at hand in view of i the

used in bad faith despite passive holding because the Complainant s mark is distinctive and well-known worldwide and the Respondent would have learned of the Complainant s mark through a simple Google search or search of trademark filings

argues that this amounts to passive holding of the disputed domain name which is not a legitimate use or bona fide offering of goods or services for the purposes of the Policy See Teachers Ins and Annuity Ass'n of Am v Wreaks Commc'ns Group

circumstances under which the passive holding of a domain name will be considered to be a bad faith registration While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case factors that have been considered relevant in applying the

falls into the category of passive holding The Complainant tried to reach the Respondent by a cease-and-desist letter sent on 6 November 2020 to the Respondent s email gdpr-masking@gdpr-masked.com as provided in the WHOIS and to the online form

the principle of so-called passive holding first laid out in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows  WIPO Case No D2000-0003.  The trademark at issue in these proceedings is well known and absent a Response it is impossible to

can be disregarded and 4 passive holding of a disputed domain name in circumstances such as those present here where there is neither potential good faith use nor a justifying explanation constitutes bad faith Complainant requests the Panel to

domain name was an example of passive holding which had been held to evidence registration and use in bad faith in Telstra Corporative Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 B Respondent The 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

faith under the doctrine of passive holding panels will have to take into account the totality of the circumstances in each case and factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include i the degree of

domain name constitutes a passive holding in bad faith because the Complainant s marks are well-known the Respondent has provided no evidence of actual or contemplated good faith use and there is no conceivable good faith use to which the