Panel notes that the current passive holding does not preclude a finding of bad faith see Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 In fact the further circumstances surrounding the disputed domain name s

faith under the doctrine of passive holding While UDRP 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

FORUM DECISION   Drumfit Holdings Inc v Eckart Seeber / Seeber Music Productions Claim Number FA2009001911464   PARTIES Complainant is Drumfit Holdings Inc Complainant represented by Danae T Robinson of Pirkey Barber PLLC Texas USA. 

that the Respondent is simply passively holding the Disputed Domain Name previous UDRP panels have ruled that the non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding See Telstra Corporation

is not a case of prolonged passive holding It is not in the Panel s opinion indicative of bad faith for a domain name registrant to fail to immediately direct the disputed domain name to an active page within a few months of registration Website

of the Complainant's rights Passive holding of a mark in such circumstances is also bad faith   B Respondent   Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding   FINDINGS The Complainant is the owner of the mark BITMEX registered in the

domain names it is currently passively held Prior UDRP panels have frequently found that the apparent lack of so-called active use of the domain name passive holding does not prevent a finding of bad faith under certain circumstances as decided

faith under the doctrine of passive holding section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 and the circumstances that the Respondent s attempted to sell the disputed domain name to the Complainants and the Respondent s involvement in previous UDRP cases

finds that the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name merckmillipore.online also amounts to use of the disputed domain name in bad faith for the purpose of the Policy see section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 See also Baidu

Complainant asserts that the passive holding doctrine applies in the present circumstances as its trademark has a strong reputation there is no evidence of any actual or contemplated good faith use by the Respondent and the Respondent has taken

a mark with a reputation passive holding can be registration and use in bad faith The use of ‘bk and ‘Swiss in the disputed domain name indicates the Respondent targeted the Complainant by the registration of the disputed domain name

use of it a practice called passive holding   Because Respondent makes no use of the domain name it cannot be said to use it in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services within the contemplation of Policy ¶ 4 c ii   See Morgan

being used by the Respondent Passive holding or non-use of the disputed domain name supports a finding of bad faith under the Policy when i the Complainant has demonstrated that its trademark is distinctive ii the Respondent has failed to provide

use under the doctrine of passive holding The Complainant further asserts that as a result of its longstanding and widespread use its FACEBOOK Trademark has become exclusively associated with the Complainant The Complainant submits that when

faith under the doctrine of passive holding The Complainant s INSTAGRAM trademark is distinctive is well known throughout the world and is exclusively associated with the Complainant Notwithstanding the Complainant s efforts to resolve this

in UDRP decisions that the passive or inactive holding of a domain name that incorporates a registered trademark without a legitimate Internet purpose may indicate that the domain name is being used in bad faith under paragraph 4 a iii of the

circumstances in which the passive holding of a domain name will be considered to be a bad faith registration including i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant s mark It submits that it is therefore implausible for the

faith under the doctrine of passive holding See WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 Factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant s mark ii

have decided 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 for example Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear

is sometimes referred to as passive holding which describes a situation in which a domain name does not resolve to any web site Whereas the analysis under the Policy is different for each of these situations and this difference can lead to