faith under the doctrine of passive holding See section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 In the absence of any evidence or explanation from Respondent the Panel finds that the only plausible basis for registering the Disputed Domain Name has been for

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

faith under the doctrine of passive holding The Panel agrees with this view and is of the opinion that the following circumstances provided by the Complainant show that the disputed domain name is being used in bad faith The Complainant s

faith under the doctrine of passive holding see section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 The Respondent s bad faith is also evidenced by its use of a privacy service to obscure its identity Pet Plan Ltd v Mohammed Nahhas WIPO Case No D2021-1964 The

that the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name in no way precludes a finding of bad faith The Complainant submits that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name intentionally and deliberately to attract for

the disputed domain name Passive holding of a domain name can be evidence of bad faith use Negotiations with the Respondent were attempted anonymously but had no chance of success given the prohibitive amount proposed by the Respondent B

determine whether the static holding page still amounts to bad faith use by the Respondent The Panel concludes that the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name does constitute bad faith use The reasoning is as follows i the

in bad faith where there is passive use of a well-known trademark in a domain name Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and Ladbroke Group Plc v Sonoma International LDC WIPO Case No D2002-0131 Under the

faith under the doctrine of passive holding and that in this case the passive holding of the domain equals bad faith use of the disputed domain name the Complainant s trademark is well-known and highly distinctive the disputed domain name is

found that the concept of passive holding may apply even in the event of sporadic use or of the mere parking by a third party of a domain name irrespective of whether the latter should also result in the generation of incidental revenue from

faith under the doctrine of passive holding see section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 The factors that are typically considered when applying the passive holding doctrine include i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant s

corresponding domain name The passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent from making a finding that it was registered and used in bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions In its informal

the Policy in cases of passive holding since Telstra see further WIPO Jurisprudential Overview version 3.0 para 3.3 In that context due weight is placed on the Complainant's assertion that the term SPIRIVA COUPONS is associated with its

was an argument of so-called passive holding in bad faith but the Panel takes the view that this cannot be sustained on the information provided.� � It follows that the Complainant is unable to establish the requirement of use in bad faith in

is not reachable Respondent's passive holding of EQONEX shows neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy � 4 c i nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy � 4 c iii See Dell Inc v link growth / Digital Marketing FA

domain name followed by a passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes �use in bad faith.'� 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

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 The factors that are typically considered when 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

for sale which constitutes passive holding That the Respondent registered the disputed domain name to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant s well-known trademark ARM That the Respondent attempts to capitalize on the goodwill and

faith under the doctrine of passive holding B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings 6.1 Preliminary Issue Language of Proceedings In respect of the language to be used in the

in bad faith where there is passive use of a well-known trademark in a domain name WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows and WIPO Case No D2002-0131 Ladbroke Group Plc v Sonoma International LDC Under the

faith under the doctrine of passive holding see WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 The Complainant s trademark has a degree of distinctiveness the Domain Name is almost identical to the Complainant s trademark and the Respondent has not provided any

domain names in this case are passively held but for no conceivably lawful use Telstra supra also National Football League v Thomas Trainer D2006-1440 WIPO December 29 2006 nflnetwork.com holding that when a registrant such as respondent here

faith under the doctrine of passive holding see also Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and Dr Martens International Trading GmbH and Dr Maertens Marketing GmbH v Godaddy.com Inc WIPO Case No D2017-0246 On

faith under the doctrine of passive holding See section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 In these circumstances the Panel holds that the disputed domain names were registered and used in bad faith The Panel finds that the above constitutes

Panel finds that the current passive holding of the disputed domain names does not prevent a finding of bad faith use As also established in a number of prior cases the concept of bad faith use in paragraph 4 b of the Policy includes not only

reason it is obvious that the passive holding of the disputed domain name by the Respondent amounts to use in bad faith The Complainant then states further that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to pretend to be the Complainant and

an active website and is thus passively held As also established in a number of prior cases the concept of bad faith use in paragraph 4 b of the Policy includes not only positive action but also passive holding see the landmark case Telstra

This Panel finds that the passive holding of the disputed domain name in such circumstances constitutes use in bad faith for the purposes of the Policy because the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant s AXA mark the Respondent

website which constitutes passive holding/non-use Lastly the Complainant alludes to paragraph 4 b iv of the Policy to reinforce its bad faith claim The Complainant therefore concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed

inactive which constitutes passive holding In the WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmellows the Panel established that the registration and passive holding of a domain name which has no other legitimate use and

faith Nor is the principle of passive holding relevant in this situation as this involves an assessment of whether the totality of the circumstances indicate that a passively-held domain name was registered to target the complainant The Panel would

can be found Respondent's passive holding of the at-issue domain name shows neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy � 4 c i nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy � 4 c iii See Thermo Electron Corp v Xu

an active website The current passive holding of the disputed domain name does not absolve the Respondent of bad faith registration and use and in fact under the circumstances of this case is further evidence of bad faith registration and use A

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

foi La présente situation de passive holding correspond très exactement aux observations figurant à la Synthèse de l OMPI version 3.0 section 3.3 à savoir notoriété de la marque défaut du Défendeur se dispensant donc de répondre masquage

held under the doctrine of passive holding that the non-use of a domain would not prevent a finding of bad faith see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions Third Edition section 3.3 More precisely it is possible in certain

domain names in this case are passively held but for no conceivably lawful use Telstra supra also National Football League v Thomas Trainer D2006-1440 WIPO December 29 2006 nflnetwork.com holding that when a registrant such as respondent here

further contends that the passive holding of the disputed domain names constitutes use in bad faith because of the lack of legitimate use and the clear reference to the Complainant s trademark According to the Complainant inference of bad faith

relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine are a the degree of distinctiveness and/or reputation of the complainant's trademark b the failure of the respondent to submit a response including providing evidence of contemplated good-faith

PANEL DECISION Alibaba Group Holding Limited v Wang Zhi Fa Case No DTM2021-0001 1 The Parties The Complainant is Alibaba Group Holding Limited Cayman Islands United Kingdom represented by ELLALAN China The Respondent is Wang Zhi Fa China 2 The

finds that the Respondent s passive holding of the Domain Name supports the finding of bad faith As numerous UDRP panels have held passive holding under the totality of circumstances of the case can constitute a bad faith use under the Policy See

in relation to the Passive Holding Doctrine that 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

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

it Instead the Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name Lastly the Complainant suggests that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith The INSTAGRAM trademark is renowned and uniquely associated to

Policy under the doctrine of passive holding The Complainant notes in this regard that the disputed domain names comprise the Complainant s distinctive and globally recognizable G4S trademark so the Respondent must been aware of the Complainant s

faith under the Policy The passive holding of the disputed domain name in the absence of any acceptable explanation of its intended use or obstacles to using it qualifies as use in bad faith under the Policy All the more so if the Respondent s

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 cited in Wahl Clipper

their affiliates and that ii passive holding of the since turned inactive disputed domain name without permission from the Complainants is not in itself capable of creating any rights for the Respondent therein The Complainants finally contend

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

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 concludes that the Complainant has

faith under the doctrine of passive holding See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 In this context it can be said that the passive holding of the disputed domain names is further evidence of bad faith

faith under the doctrine of passive holding Looking at section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions Third Edition WIPO Overview 3.0 all of the relevant factors in applying the passive holding doctrine are

faith under the doctrine of passive holding The Panel has reviewed all elements of this case and attributes particular relevance to the commercial and plagiarized contents of the website previously linked to the disputed domain name to the fact

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

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 section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 Finally the Respondent has chosen not to respond to the Complainant s allegations According to the panel s decision in The Argento Wine Company Limited v Argento

PANEL DECISION VKR Holding A/S v Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / lion heart Case No D2022-0005 1 The Parties The Complainant is VKR Holding A/S Denmark represented by CSC Digital Brand Services Group AB Sweden The

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

has demonstrated bad faith by passive holding of the disputed domain name Such a finding is consistent with previous UDRP decisions such as Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 See also WIPO Overview 3.0

faith under the doctrine of passive holding considering the circumstances of this case See WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 Accordingly the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith pursuant to paragraph

active use of the domain name passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith 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 cumulative

decisions confirm 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

content which constitutes passive holding Registration and passive holding of a domain name which has no other legitimate use and clearly refers to the Complainant's trademark may constitute registration and use in bad faith Complainant has

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 to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use and iv the

domain name constitutes a passive holding in bad faith as the disputed domain name comprises a widely known trade mark and there is no response or explanation as to how it could be used in good faith The Registrant has engaged in a pattern of

are indicative of passive holding in bad faith as explained in section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 i the distinctiveness and fame of the Complainant s mark ii the failure of the Respondent to submit a formal response or to provide any

lacking content amounts to passive holding Complainant also provides evidence of its communications with Respondent and how while initially agreeing to transfer the domain name Respondent finally decided not to B Respondent Given that the

sites The Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain names does not preclude a finding of bad faith WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 The relevant factors here are i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant s mark

Name Finally inactive or passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name by the Respondent does not prevent a finding of bad faith See Advance Magazine Publishers Inc and Les Publications Condé Nast S.A v ChinaVogue.com WIPO Case No D2005-0615

circumstances of the case the passive holding of the disputed domain names would not prevent a finding of bad faith registration and use see WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 The passive holding of the disputed domain names would not prevent a finding

disputed domain name is being passively held c the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and d Given the passive holding of the disputed domain name the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the

faith under the doctrine of passive holding In this regard different factors have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine including the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant s mark and the

� 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 bad faith within the requirements of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy See Telstra Corporation Limited v

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

is now engaged in bad faith passive holding and 6 Respondent s use of a privacy service reinforces its bad faith intent Complainant requests the Panel to direct the Registrar to transfer the disputed domain name to Complainant B Respondent

submits that by its passive holding 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 Respondent did not reply to the

that this amounts to a passive holding of the disputed domain name in bad faith Factors that previous panels have found as relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine and which are set out at section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO

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 Procedural Factors The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and

trademark and subsequent passive holding of such a domain is viewed by the Examiner as bad faith The Registrant has not submitted any evidences confirming circumstances listed in URS Procedure 5.7 In the absence of any defense which might have

content Respondent's passive holding of the at-issue domain name shows neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy � 4 c i nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy � 4 c iii See Dell Inc v link growth /

faith under the doctrine of passive holding The totality of the circumstances in each case will be examined and factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include i the degree of distinctiveness or

de um nome de domínio passive holding pode indicar má-fé Contudo para tanto essa posse passiva necessariamente deve vir acompanhada de outros elementos ou padrões de conduta que legitimem a conclusão pela má-fé o que não ocorreu no

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

3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 passive holding of a disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith and in this context the Panel notes that the Respondent has provided false contact details and false underlying registrant information

faith under the doctrine of passive holding The factors that are typically considered when 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

faith under the doctrine of passive holding as stated i.e in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 Indeed in view of the Respondent s registration of a domain name

submits that by its passive holding 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 Respondent did not reply to the

as it is commonly agreed that passive holding does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain names The burden of proof has been shifted to the Respondent to prove

in finding bad faith in the passive holding include i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant s mark ii the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use

faith under the doctrine of passive holding The Panel agrees with this view and finds that the circumstance of past bad faith use by the Respondent makes it implausible that the disputed domain name will be put to any good faith use in the future

regard the Panel finds that holding a domain name passively without making any use of it also does not confer any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name on the Respondent see in this regard earlier UDRP decisions such as

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

s BOURSORAMA trademark Passively holding a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 This includes domain names that do not resolve to any website content Where a domain name is being passively held as

faith under the doctrine of passive holding section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 Therefore the third element of paragraph 4 a of the Policy is satisfied in the present case 7 Decision For the foregoing reasons in accordance with paragraphs 4 i of

to an inactive web site.� Passive holding of a domain name is also evidence of bad faith.� Given the non-exclusive nature of Policy � 4 b failure to make active use of a confusingly similar domain name is also evidence of bad faith �Caravan

faith under the doctrine of passive holding when circumstances exist such as the distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant s mark the failure of the respondent to submit a formal response or to provide any evidence of actual or

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

faith under the doctrine of passive holding Section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 states that relevant factors to finding bad faith in passive holding include i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant s mark ii the failure

Internet users The current passive holding of the disputed domain name does not absolve the Respondent of bad faith registration and use and in fact under the circumstances of this case supports a finding of bad faith registration and use See