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

concludes that Respondent s passive holding of the Domain Name which features a fanciful and established trademark plus a word that describes the services offered by Complainant under that mark constitutes bad faith use under the Policy The Panel

that the Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name and that the same does not resolve into a fully functional website Previous UDRP panels have ruled that even the non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad

s trademark MICHELIN Passive holding of a domain name does not preclude a finding of use in bad faith Reproducing famous trademarks in a domain name in order to attract Internet users to an inactive website cannot be regarded as fair use

active use of the domain name passive holding does not prevent a finding of bad faith under certain circumstances as decided inter alia in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 In view of i the confusingly

and use under the passive holding doctrine As section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 explains factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of 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

according to the Doctrine of Passive Holding in the event the use for commercial gain would not be qualified RESPONDENT The Respondent did not submit a Response Rights The Complainant has to the satisfaction of the Panel shown the disputed domain

implausible Thus the current passive holding of the disputed domain name does not change the Panel s findings above Considering the above the Panel finds the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith Therefore the

relevant to the bad faith passive holding of the disputed domain name according to prior UDRP panel decisions see Section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 Indeed doing so the Panel finds that the Respondent intentionally attempted to passively hold

decisions confirmed 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 in this regard Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear

faith under the doctrine of passive holding see par 3.3 of WIPO Overview 3.0 One has to look at the circumstances of a case taking into account in particular the nature of the domain name e.g a typo of a widely-known mark the degree of

in considering whether passive holding satisfies the requirements of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy In the absence of any evidence as to why the Respondent s registration and passive holding of a domain name that is identical to the

the Respondent is effectively passively holding the disputed domain name and is not making any use of the same Previous UDRP panels have ruled that the inactive of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive

which it argues amounts to passive holding that constitutes bad faith registration pursuant to Policy � 4 a iii See Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp v Risser FA 93761 Forum May 18 2000 The requirement in the ICANN Policy that a complainant prove

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

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

use on the basis of so-called passive holding as first laid out in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The Panel finds that case to be directly applicable to the circumstances here involving the Trade Mark The

faith under the doctrine of passive holding See section 3.3 WIPO Overview 3.0 In light of the above taking into consideration all cumulative circumstances of this case on the balance of probabilities the Panel considers that the disputed domain

faith under the doctrine of passive holding Factors considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant s mark the failure of the respondent to submit any evidence of