opportunistic bad faith   Passive holding of a domain name containing a famous mark is registration and use in bad faith   B Respondent   Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding   FINDINGS Complainant is the owner of the

disputed domain name is in a passive holding and offered for sale without any legitimate interest and in bad faith by the respondent who failed to provide any explanation or to respond to any of the Complainant s insisted enquiries As a result the

in bad faith Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith Complainant submits that Respondent is using the disputed domain name as a blocking registration to prevent Complainant from using the disputed domain

faith under the doctrine of passive holding B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings I As regards the language of proceedings The Panel is seized of a request that the language of the

shown from the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name Passive holding of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and Novo Nordisk A/S v

have held that such use or passive holding of a disputed domain name is demonstrative of Respondent's lack of rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4 c i and iii   See Hewlett-Packard Co v Shemesh FA

that the Respondent s current passive holding of the disputed domain name which according to the Complainant resolves to an inactive landing page does not prevent a finding of bad faith According to the Complainant the presence of the disputed

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

It is well-established that passive holding as in this case can constitute bad-faith use depending upon all the circumstances of the Respondent s conduct The Complainant relies upon Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No

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

suisse constituée en 1996 et holding du groupe Novartis qui se présente comme l un des plus grands groupes pharmaceutiques au niveau mondial employant près de 109 000 personnes de 149 nationalités différentes et ayant atteint en 2019 un

briefly with the doctrine of passive holding A passive holding or non-use of a domain name can support a finding of bad faith As section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 states panels must look at the totality of the circumstances in each case and

falls into the category of passive holding which means bad faith use   NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED Rights Complainant has to the satisfaction of the Panel shown the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly

nor does the Respondent s passive holding of the domain name amount to making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of it The Complainant having made out a prima facie case in relation to the second element the burden of proof shifts to the

possible that a r espondent's passive holding amounts to acting in bad faith Id The Panel in Teltstra specifically noted that paragraph 4 b recognizes that inaction e.g passive holding in relation to a domain name registration can in certain

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 followed by a passive holding of the disputed domain names constitutes ‘use 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

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

in dispute which constitutes passive holding of the disputed domain names Finally Complainant notes that the Respondent has been using privacy shield to conceal its identity   NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED Rights The

faith under the doctrine of passive holding See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 In such a situation it is appropriate to look at the totally of the circumstances of the case Here the facts alleged in the