and use under the doctrine of passive holding see CAC Case No 102333 Amedei S.r.l v sun xin the factors set out in that decision as indicating bad faith passive holding are fully present in the case of this disputed domain name The Panel

to an inactive page The passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith use MX servers are configured It suggests that the disputed domain name may be actively used for email purposes RESPONDENT The Respondent did not submit

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 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 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

Annex 11 It submits that such passive holding of the domain name further supports the submission that the Respondent is not making any bona fide or legitimate business use of the disputed domain name Having considered the Complainant s submissions

to use this trademark and the passive holding of the disputed domain name support a finding of bad faith under the Policy The Complainant has cited previous decisions under the Policy that it considers supportive of its position and requests the

reserved used and is holding the Disputed Domain Name willfully in bad faith and in complete disregard of Complainant s exclusive rights to use and authorize the use of the WIKIPEDIA mark Respondent did not adopt the Disputed Domain Name

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

furthermore argues that the passive holding of the disputed domain name is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name   Complainant adds that Respondent is passively holding of the disputed domain name that incorporates the

use 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

web pages which constitutes passive holding According to Complainant the passive holding of the disputed domain names would also indicate that there is no legitimate interest or rights from Respondent Therefore paragraph 4 a ii of the Policy and

site However the Respondent s passive holding of this disputed domain name qualifies as use in bad faith in this case Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 In this regard the Panel notes the reputation of the

PANEL DECISION KAP Industrial Holdings Limited v Registration Private Domains By Proxy LLC / Angela Pliler Case No D2021-3350 1 The Parties The Complainant is KAP Industrial Holdings Limited South Africa represented by Moore Attorneys Incorporated

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 used in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4 a iii

determined that inactivity or passive holding can be regarding as use in bad faith within the meaning of the Policy The Complainant has tendered evidence of the strength of its reputation and use of the AMUNDI mark The Respondent has failed to

Respondent is currently holding the disputed domain name passively 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

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

have any active content a passive holding of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith Panels have among others taken into consideration the strong reputation and well-known character of Complainant s mark the lack of evidence

faith under the doctrine of passive holding taking account of the degree of distinctiveness and reputation of the Complainant s INTESA SANPAOLO trademark the failure of the Respondent to submit a Response and the implausibility of any good faith