faith under the doctrine of passive holding See section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 The Respondent has kept silent in the face of the Complainant s allegations of bad faith Taking into account these circumstances the Panel finds that the

/ Hasan Yilmaz Yilmaz Holding Case No D2021-3176 1 The Parties The Complainant is Instagram LLC United States of America United States represented by Tucker Ellis LLP United States The Respondent is Privacy Inc Customer 0159656204 United

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

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

also refers to the passive or inactive holding of the Disputed Domain Name and the Respondent s listing of the Disputed Domain Name for sale as possible acts of bad faith following the circumstances prescribed in the WIPO Overview of

website that cannot be found Passive holding does not prevent a finding of bad faith It is to be noted that the Panel was not able to retrieve the app in order to assess its relevance and impact on the findings but the above is sufficient to

domain name subsequently i.e passively holding it can constitute a factor in finding bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name Telstra Corp v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Alitalia Linee Aeree Italiane S.p.A v

sites and services the passive holding of the disputed domain names does not confer rights or legitimate interests to the Respondent the Complainant s trademarks are distinctive and not used in the commerce other than by the Complainant

the Complainant cites the passive holding doctrine to characterize the Respondent s conduct as bad faith an abusive threat hanging over the head of the Complainant B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions On

for the Complainant the passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith registration and use in summary the recognition of the Complainant s trademarks the lack of response the Respondent s concealing of

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

decisions confirmed that the passive holding of a domain name with the 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

circumstances of inaction passive holding other than those identified in paragraphs 4 b i ii and iii can constitute a domain name being used in bad faith concluding that the question can only be answered in respect of the particular facts of 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

contends that the doctrine of passive holding must be applied given that i the Respondent is making use of a privacy service in order to conceal its identity ii the disputed domain name solely comprises the Complainant s TEVAPHARM mark and company

under specific circumstances passive holding does not prevent a finding of bad faith See section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions Third Edition WIPO Overview 3.0 In the absence of a rebuttal of these

to an inactive website Passive holding has been considered by UDRP panels to constitute bad faith In the present circumstances including the typosquatting of the Complainant s well known trademark the failure of the Respondent to submit a

to send fraudulent e mails   Passive holding of a domain name containing a sign confusingly similar to a famous mark disrupts the Complainant's business and is opportunistic registration and use in bad faith Typosquatting and sending fraudulent e

that Respondent's current passive use of the disputed domain name demonstrates bad faith Previous Panels have held that inactive holding of an infringing domain name may demonstrate bad faith under Policy ¶ 4 a iii See Regions Bank v Darla

Domain Name may be put the passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding In the circumstances the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and has been using the