noncommercial or fair use   Passive holding of a domain name containing a sign confusingly similar to a famous mark disrupts the Complainant's business and is opportunistic registration and use in bad faith Typosquatting is registration and use

faith under the doctrine of passive holding see WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 For all the foregoing reasons the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith 7 Decision For the foregoing reasons

website Under the doctrine of passive holding bad faith may be found in registering and holding a domain name registration containing the trademark of a third party B Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and

of this particular case the passive holding of the disputed domain name by the Respondent amounts to the Respondent acting in bad faith Relying on Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 the Panel concludes that

faith under the doctrine of passive holding section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 Moreover as noted under section 6B of this Decision the disputed domain name has been used to host a PPC website containing links that directly compete with the

used in bad faith because passive holding indicates bad faith use B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings A Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant owns trademark

used in bad faith because passive holding indicates bad faith use B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings A Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant owns trademark

used in bad faith because passive holding indicates bad faith use B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings A Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant owns trademark

websites which constitutes passive holding/non-use of the Disputed Domain Name Second the Complainant has tried to reach the Respondent by a cease-and-desist notice sent on 17 August 2020 and as the registrant was under privacy shield sent via

the at-issue domain name passively The domain name fails to address an active website Respondent's passive holding of the confusingly similar redhatsoftware.com domain name indicates that Respondent is making neither a bona fide offering of

FORUM DECISION   WYNN Resorts Holdings LLC v hansuan guan Claim Number FA2009001913473   PARTIES Complainant is WYNN Resorts Holdings LLC Complainant represented by Peter Ajemian of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck Nevada USA Respondent is hansuan

available The Respondent s passive holding of the domain name for over six years evidences a lack of legitimate rights The disputed domain name was not used in good faith by the Respondent nor did the Respondent have rights in the trademark The

s website The Respondent is holding the disputed domain name passively Previous UDRP panels have consistently held that passive holding of domain names can be considered bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name B Respondent The

have consistently held that passive holding of a disputed domain name is not by itself sufficient to avoid a finding of use in bad faith The Panel agrees with the panel in the Telstra Corporation v Nuclear Marshmallows decision and considers that

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

demonstrated by Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name which resolves to an under-construction web page In the Amendment to the Complaint the Complainant adds that the Complainant owns trademarks in the United Kingdom where the

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

faith under the doctrine of passive holding 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 the failure of the respondent to

even in cases of so-called passive holding as found in the landmark UDRP decision Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 In the circumstances of this case the Panel finds that such passive holding amounts to

faith under the doctrine of passive holding see par 3.3 of WIPO Overview 3.0 and Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 One has to look at the circumstances of a case taking into account in particular the