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

interest in the Domain Name � Passive holding of a Domain Name containing a well-known mark is registration and use in bad faith The Respondent also used a privacy service to cover its use of the Domain Name � B.�� Respondent Respondent failed to

Respondent is engaged in passive holding section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 starts that passive holding or non-use of a domain name may support a finding of bad faith In particular While panelists will look at the totality of the

it can be considered to be a passive holding of the disputed domain name by the Respondent Passive holding infers bad faith registration and use since the Complainant s trademark is very distinctive and has a strong reputation and also because the

websites which constitutes passive holding and/or non-use of the disputed domain name The Complainant states that it had sent a cease-and-desist notice to the Respondent at the e-mail address doctorwalk@outlook.com as provided in the WHOIS and

which did not recognize a passive holding of a domain name as bad faith use One of the factors in determining the existence of bad faith use in case of a passive holding is the notoriety of the mark concerned However Complainant's mark is not a

faith under the doctrine of passive holding See section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 In addition the Complainant has provided evidence that the disputed domain name previously resolved to a login page for a lottery which shows an intention to use

found that the concept of passive holding may apply even in the event of sporadic use or of the mere parking by a third party of a domain name Further the inaction in relation to a domain name registration can also constitute a domain name

constitutes a current passive holding that does not prevent any finding of bad faith Finally the Panel considers that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name for phishing purposes and in order to attract for commercial

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

DECISION Ya-Ya Shirt Company Holding B.V v Yang Lin（杨林） Case No D2020-2493 1 The Parties The Complainant is Ya-Ya Shirt Company Holding B.V Netherlands represented by Koster & Partner Ltd Netherlands The Respondent is Yang Lin（杨林）

the disputed domain name is passively held While passive holding is not conclusive that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests the composition of the domain name in this dispute cannot support the conclusion that Respondent has either

among panelists that the mere passive holding of a disputed domain name may be evidence not only of bad faith registration but also indicative of bad faith use In the present case Complainant has provided screenshots of the disputed domain name's

faith under the doctrine of passive holding While panels 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

plus qu une simple détention passive passive holding est condamnée par les commissions administratives UDRP Aussi la Commission administrative considère-t-elle que l enregistrement et l usage du nom de domaine litigieux ont été faits de

from the Respondent the passive holding of the disputed domain name and the subsequent offer for sale of the disputed domain name via the Website on the date of this Decision the Panel finds in all the circumstances that the requisite element

of the Disputed Domain Name passive holding The Respondent appears to have engaged in longstanding passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name for the specific purpose of disrupting its use by the owner of a corresponding trade mark and/or for

by reason of the principle of passive holding as first enunciated in the case of�Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows �WIPO Case No D2000-0003.� The trade mark is well-known and it is difficult to conceive of any future bona fide use

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

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