circumstances under which the passive holding of a domain 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

circumstances under which the passive holding of a domain 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

domain name resolves to a passive holding website which does not prevent a finding of use of the disputed domain name in bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings In order to

of the Respondents and the passive holding of this disputed domain name represents bad faith registration and use under the Policy The Complainant also states that the Respondents have provided inaccurate contact data to the Registrars B

domain name resolves to a passive holding page It is highly unlikely that the Respondent did not know about the Complainant s trademark TEVA when it registered the disputed domain name There is no way in which the disputed domain name could be

to active websites and that passive holding falls also under the terms of the UDRP and is in certain circumstances considered as an indicator of bad faith use B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion

decisions confirmed that the 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 see in this regard Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear

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 It is important to mention that before filing the Complaint the disputed domain name was hidden through

faith under the doctrine of passive holding See section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 The Panel also finds that the previous use of the disputed domain name for a news website constitutes bad faith The Respondent has kept silent in the face of the

faith under the doctrine of passive holding Noting that the disputed domain names all incorporate a well-known trademark that no response has been filed that there appears to be no conceivable good faith use that could be made by the Respondent

faith under the doctrine of passive holding see WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 Moreover the Respondent s use of a privacy service is designed to shield the Respondent from its identification in UDRP proceedings and even if the use of a privacy

relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant s mark ii the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use

faith under the doctrine of passive holding and in applying this panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case In the present case the Panel is satisfied that the overall circumstances of the case suggest that the

constitutes bad faith use as passive holding v given the reputation of the Complainant s CREDIT MUTUEL trademark it is implausible that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name in good faith as the Complainant has never given any

Furthermore 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 / Ð'италий Броцман Vitalii Brocman WIPO Case

correctly asserted that the passive holding of a domain name may in appropriate circumstances be indicative of bad faith It will be so indicative when all the circumstances of the Respondent's behaviour indicates he or she is acting in bad faith

  The Panel agrees that the passive holding of a domain name does not necessarily circumvent a finding that the domain name is being used in bad faith within the requirements of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy.  See Telstra Corporation Limited v

faith under the doctrine of passive-holding In accordance with this doctrine the Panel takes into account the apparent reputation of the Trademarks the Respondent s attempt to sell the Disputed Domain Name for an amount far in excess of the cost

used in bad faith due to passive holding which is indicative of an intention to hold the disputed domain names for future use in a way detrimental to the Complainant B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6

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