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

is a consensus view about passive holding From the inception of the UDRP panelists have found that the non-use of a domain name including a blank or ‘coming soon page would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive

faith under the doctrine of passive holding It depends on the facts of the case and the failure of the Respondent to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use is a relevant factor Typosquatting amounts to paradigm bad faith

faith under the doctrine of passive holding See section 3.3 of WIPO Overview 3.0 Considering that the Panel has found that the Complainant s trademark is well known the Respondent has not responded to the Complaint or to the Complainant s

name Indeed the Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name which resolves to a blank page However such passive holding of the disputed domain name does not preclude a finding of bad faith given the overall circumstances of the case

mark The Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain names does not preclude a finding of bad faith in the attendant circumstances of this case As set forth in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows supra the relevant

likewise Respondent's current passive holding of the at-issue domain name where browsing to the domain name now returns an error message show neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy � 4 c i nor a non-commercial or fair use of

faith under the doctrine of passive holding In this regard the Panel takes into account i the high degree of distinctiveness and reputation of the Complainant s trademark ii the failure of the Respondent to submit a response or to provide any

FA 1625898 Forum July 27 2015 holding A Complainant does not need to hold registered trademark rights in order to have rights in a mark under Policy � 4 a i and it is well established that a Complainant may rely on common law or unregistered

and this can be considered as passive holding by the Respondent which falls within the concept of the disputed domain names being used in bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings

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

of the Disputed Domain Name passive holding does not prevent a finding of bad faith By using the Disputed Domain Name passively and having no content on its web page the Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith See

typically referred to as passive holding ��Passive holding is the antithesis of excused delay.��In cases where passive holding was found non use was coupled with a complainant having valid trademark rights commencing prior to the date on which

use but also the present passive holding of the disputed domain name since the Respondent has failed to present any evidence of any good faith use in this respect so that there is no plausible reason for authorized future active usage with

contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith Examples of what may be circumstances found to be indicative of bad faith include that no response to the complaint has been filed Accordingly the

Name which is similar to passive holding which would not prevent a finding of bad faith The Complainant submits that the following factors support a conclusion of bad faith use in the present case i the WHATSAPP trade mark is well known

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

AG une société suisse holding du groupe Novartis l un des plus grands groupes pharmaceutiques au niveau mondial et titulaire de plusieurs enregistrements pour la marque NOVARTIS parmi lesquels la marque internationale NOVARTIS No 663765

Respondent has engaged in passive holding in bad faith Complainant further argues that Respondent has acted in bad faith by concealing its identity through a privacy service Complainant also contends that Respondent is a domain name investor

Case No D2000-0003 that the passive holding of the disputed domain name in such circumstances constitutes use in bad faith Accordingly the Complainants have established all three requirements under the Policy 7 Decision For the foregoing reasons