faith under the doctrine of passive holding The Complainant reiterates that the disputed domain name was used by the Respondent to redirect to the Respondent s website and does not accurately and prominently disclose the Respondent s lack of a

asserts that this amounts to passive use in bad faith The factors that panels have previously considered to amount to a passive holding in bad faith are set out at section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions

faith under the doctrine of passive holding in this case WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 In addition to the circumstances referred to above Respondent s failure to file a response and the undelivered Written Notice to Respondent Das Kty due to

panels have long held that passive holding of a domain name confusingly similar to a distinctive mark could be considered given the totality of the circumstances bad faith for purposes of the third element of a UDRP complaint See WIPO Overview

websites which constitutes passive holding/non-use of the Disputed Domain Name Secondly the Complainant has tried to reach the Respondent by a cease-and-desist notice sent on 24 September 2020 and as the registrant was under privacy shield sent

to any use The Respondent is holding the disputed domain name passively It has long been held in UDRP decisions that the passive holding of a domain name that incorporates a well-known trademark without obvious legitimate use does not necessarily

� Cooper's Hawk Intermediate Holding LLC v Tech Admin / Virtual Point Inc Claim Number FA2010001916204 � PARTIES Complainant is Cooper's Hawk Intermediate Holding LLC Complainant represented by Kevin J Lahey of Sponsler Koren Hammer & Lahey P.A

section 6.B the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name following receipt of the Complainant s letter of demand and the Respondent s failure to submit any response to the Complainant s contentions the Panel finds that the

according to the doctrine of passive holding See section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions Third Edition WIPO Overview 3.0 Thus the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name was registered and is being

the Respondent s passive holding of the Domain Name amounts to registration and 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

faith under the doctrine of passive holding The Complainant maintains that there is no plausible future active use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent that would be legitimate and not infringing on the Complainant s well-known mark The

faith under the doctrine of passive holding see section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 While there is no evidence that there has been an attempt by the Respondent to directly sell the disputed domain name to the Complainant or one of its

disputed domain name and then holding it passively does not ordinarily confer rights or legitimate interests on the Respondent See for example Guinness World Records Limited v Solution Studio WIPO Case No D2016-0186 While passive holding by itself

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

noncommercial or fair use � Passive holding and typosquatting is an indication of opportunistic bad faith and requisite knowledge per se � B Respondent � Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding � FINDINGS The Complainant is the

website hence it is being passively held As an illustration the Complainant indicates that the panel in the case Facebook Inc v Mirza Azim WIPO Case No D2016-0950 found that such passive holding cannot be considered as a bona fide offering of

faith under the doctrine of passive holding see WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 Under all the circumstances of this case as described above the Panel is satisfied that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with the Complainant s marks

UDRP panels have held that passive holding of a domain name could amount to use in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy Factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include i the

use Instead Respondent is passively holding the Domain Name without posting any content The Domain Name resolves to the Registrar s parked webpage stating at the bottom This Web page is parked FREE courtesy of GoDaddy Complainant contends that

faith under the doctrine of passive holding As discussed in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 the relevant issue is not limited to whether the Respondent is undertaking a positive action in bad faith