decisions confirmed that the passive holding of a domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use The Panel agrees that the passive holding of a domain name does not necessarily circumvent a finding that the domain name is being used in

the Complainant The current passive holding of the disputed domain name is also evidence of bad faith from the Respondent Previous UDRP panels have found that the apparent lack of so-called active use of the domain name without any active attempt

of the case As far as passive holding is concerned it notes that panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case and that factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include i

preparations to use it 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

also states that the passive holding of the Domain Name does not prevent a finding of bad faith in order to take advantage of the reputation of the Complainant Thus the Complainant concludes that the Domain Name should be transferred in

certain circumstances the passive holding of a domain name cannot prevent a finding of bad faith and that the case at issue is one where the passive holding of the disputed domain name cannot avoid bad faith Rights The Complainant has to the

of bad faith under the passive holding doctrine Having considered the totality of the circumstances the reasons for this include i the failure of the Respondent to submit a Response or provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good

Complaint the Respondent was passively holding the disputed domain name and therefore was not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of it In accordance with the general powers conferred to the Panel by the Rules the Panel has made a quick

faith under the doctrine of passive holding see WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 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

faith under the doctrine of passive holding The Panel must examine all the circumstances of the case to determine whether the Respondent is acting in bad faith Examples of what may be relevant circumstances found to be indicative of bad faith

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

with a MX record The current passive holding of the disputed domain name is also evidence of bad faith from the Respondent 7 Decision For the foregoing reasons in accordance with paragraphs 4 i of the Policy and 15 of the Rules the Panel orders

the Complainant asserts the passive holding of the disputed domain name demonstrates the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and

contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith For the reasons described above and since the Respondent failed to provide any explanation in this regard the Panel contends on the balance of

use under the doctrine of passive holding In addition Complainant argues that the fact that the Domain Name incorporates Complainant s well-known Trademarks in their entirety indicates that Respondent registered and used the Domain Name with

dated April 14 2020 and the passive holding of the disputed domain name thereafter together with the lack of rebuttal by the Respondent of the Complainant s allegations is also an indication of bad faith Previous UDRP panels have ruled that the

the Panel finds that the passive holding of the disputed domain name in the circumstances of the case can be also considered an inference of bad faith registration and use Accordingly the Panel finds on the basis of the evidence presented that

with registration and passively holding it knowing of the Complainant's rights demonstrates the Respondent's bad faith citing Telstra Corp Ltd v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the

the Domain Name was being passively held The Panel finds that the non-use of the Domain Name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding in this case See WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 At the time of the

submits that by its passive holding and use for phishing purposes the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith v The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant B Respondent The