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 18 February 2020 and as the registrant was under privacy shield sent

the trade mark of another Passive holding of a domain name containing a mark with a reputation can be bad faith registration and use See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows D2000-0003 WIPO Feb 18 2000 � As such the Panel holds

faith under the doctrine of passive holding see WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 Further the Complainant has provided evidence that the Respondent has been using the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to third party websites which some

for any bona fide offering Passive holding of a domain name can in appropriate circumstances amount to registration and use in bad faith There is no conceivable use that could be made of the disputed domain name that would not amount to an

faith under the doctrine of passive holding The Respondent has no colorable argument that it is unaware of the Complainant s well-known brand and the use of nearly identical red/blue designs demonstrates awareness of such brand and intent to

the trade mark of another Passive holding of a domain name containing an established third party mark can be bad faith registration and use See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows D2000-0003 WIPO Feb 18 2000 � As such the Panel

use under the doctrine of passive holding Therefore taking all circumstances into account and for all above reasons the Panel concludes that there is bad faith in the use and registration of the Disputed Domain Name The third element of

faith under the doctrine of passive holding Section 3.3 WIPO Overview 3.0 The WIPO Overview 3.0 further states While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case factors that have been considered relevant in applying the

domain name in bad faith by passively holding it without a legitimate purpose B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 4 a of the Policy in order to succeed a

Domain Name is inactive The passive holding of a domain name may amount to bad faith when it is difficult to imagine any plausible future active use of a domain name by the respondent that would be legitimate and would not interfere with the

of the disputed domain name � Passive holding of a domain name containing a mark with a reputation is commonly held to be bad faith registration and use See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows D2000-0003 WIPO Feb 18 2000 � As such

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

bajo la doctrina del passive holding Véase la sección 3.3 de la Sinopsis elaborada por la OMPI 3.0 Todas estas circunstancias llevan al Experto a concluir que la Demandada conociendo la existencia de la Demandante y de sus marcas

implausible Thus the current passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith see e.g Abbott Diabetes Care Inc v Privacy Protection Hosting Ukraaine LLC / �'италий Броцман Vitalii Brocman WIPO Case

is evident and Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name since it was registered on November 25 2019 For the reasons described above Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be cancelled B Respondent Respondent did not

domain names constitute a passive holding in bad faith B Respondents The Respondents did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings Under the Policy the Complainant is required to prove on the balance of probabilities

domain names in bad faith by passively holding them without a legitimate purpose B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 4 a of the Policy in order to succeed a

disputed domain name and c passive holding of a disputed domain name may in appropriate circumstances be consistent with a finding of bad faith Such circumstances include situation occurring in this case when Complainant s Trademark is

use of a domain name or the passive holding of the disputed domain name permits the inference that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interest in the domain name Michelin North America Inc v Energie Media Group FA451882 Forum Aug 7 2012 �

notes in this connection that passive holding of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith use under paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy it does not change that view of the Panel that the disputed name is inactive due to a blocking by