here present even the passive holding of the disputed domain name should result in a finding of bad faith use by the Respondent The Complainant through counsel sent a detailed cease and desist notice to the Respondent on August 10 2021

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

evidence that Respondent has passively held the disputed domain name since registration and Respondent has listed the disputed domain name for sale on the Afternic.com platform for USD 1 000 Passively holding a domain name in and of itself does

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

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

claims that the Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name Lastly the Complainant points out that the Respondent s alleged identity theft referenced in the third party s email is is further proof of bad faith of the Respondent whoever

faith under the doctrine of passive holding Finally the Complainant documents that the Respondent has offered false contact information and asserts that the email servers of the Domain Name has been activated The Respondent has also used a

In these circumstances the passive holding of the disputed domain name would 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 Accordingly the

domain name constitutes a passive holding in bad faith on the grounds that the Complainant is well-known and the disputed domain name clearly refers to the Complainant the Respondent did not respond to the Complainant s cease and desist letters

faith under the doctrine of passive holding In determining whether to apply the passive holding doctrine panelists look at i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant s mark ii the failure of the respondent to submit a

submits that Respondent s passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name does not preclude a finding of bad faith in the attendant circumstances of this case as has been already decided in the WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Telstra Corporation Limited v

that Respondent has been passively holding the Disputed Domain Name because it directs to a functionally blank webpage Complainant cites two cases in support of the proposition that passive holding is in itself incompatible with a claim for

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

with Respondent s otherwise passive holding of the disputed domain name B Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings To succeed in its Complaint Complainant must establish in accordance with

faith under the doctrine of passive holding In its determination the Panel considers the degree of distinctiveness and reputation of the Complainant s BVLGARI mark as well as the Respondent s failure to respond in the face of the Complainant s

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 appears to be a misspelling of said trademark and the Respondent has not provided any

website 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

page 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 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

making no active use of it.  Passive holding of an infringing domain name does not confer rights under Policy ¶¶ 4 c i or iii as it does not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use  Morgan

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

procedure and the now passive holding of these domain names indicate that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in it Furthermore in the case of the IKEAQSHOP.COM the Respondent receives profits by offering for sale items

Complainant's mark and by passively holding one of the Domain Names  Also Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the ADDEPAR mark when she registered the Domain Names.    B Respondent Respondent did not submit a Response in

concludes that the present passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes a bad faith use putting emphasis on the following the Complainant s trademarks are famous with strong reputation and are well-known globally the Respondent has

faith under the doctrine of passive holding The Respondents have taken steps to conceal its identity by registering the Disputed Domain Names behind a privacy service and providing false or incomplete contact information The presence of the

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

faith under the doctrine of passive holding which can be applied to the disputed domain name since the Complainant s ELECTROLUX trademark is well-known and it is more than likely that the Respondent was aware of it at the time of its registration

Complainant argues that the passive holding of a domain name does not constitute a legitimate use or bona fide offering of goods or services See Teachers Ins and Annuity Ass'n of Am v Wreaks Commc'ns Group D2006-0483 WIPO June 15 2006 passive

of bad faith under the passive holding doctrine as stated in section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 The Panel therefore finds that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith under paragraph 4 b iv of the Policy 7

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

that the Respondent may be passively holding the disputed domain name that bad faith can be found in the circumstances of this case citing Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The Complainant further submits

and effectively amounts to a passive holding While the cbdistillery.store disputed domain name does not currently resolve to an active site based on the evidence filed by the Complainant and as at the date of filing this disputed domain name

faith under the doctrine of passive holding Whether there is passive holding cannot be answered in abstract but rather the Panel must consider the totality of the circumstances applicable to a specific case Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear

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

It contends that the current passive holding of the disputed domain name remains a use in bad faith under the Policy Together the Complainant submits that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith B Respondent The

3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 passive holding of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith In addition the Panel cannot conceive of any legitimate use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent other than targeting the Complainant s

or use the Domain Names The passive holding of a domain name containing a well-known mark or use of one for pay per click links does not show a legitimate use or bona fide offering of goods and services Respondent does not have any rights or

Respondent may be regarded as passively holding the Domain Name that passive holding constitutes bad faith registration and use of the Domain Name B Respondent The Respondent did not file any Response to the Amended Complaint 6 Discussion and

in UDRP decisions that the passive or inactive holding of a domain name that incorporates a registered trademark without a legitimate purpose may indicate that the domain name is being used in bad faith Respondent s failure to use the disputed

The doctrine of so-called passive holding where a disputed domain name resolves to a blank coming soon or similar page has been considered by numerous panels previously In accordance with section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 the relevant

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

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

faith under the doctrine of passive holding The Panel has hence reviewed all elements of this case and attaches particular relevance to the following elements to assert use in bad faith Firstly the Panel notes that when the Respondent registered

webpage the doctrine of passive holding must be applied Indeed the Complainant underlines that the contact information provided by the Respondent when registering the disputed domain name is most likely false as it corresponds to that of an

website Regarding the passive holding of the disputed domain name by Respondent Complainant relies that the non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding Besides Complainant puts

faith under the doctrine of passive holding In similar situations UDRP panelists look into the totality of circumstances in a specific case including the following i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant s mark ii the

faith under the doctrine of passive holding 4 Among factors indicating bad faith use of a domain name the implausibility of any good faith use is relevant in this case The Respondent s prior use of the Domain Name for a website purportedly

3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 passive holding of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith For the reasons set out above the Panel finds that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith and that

faith under the doctrine of passive holding See section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 The Respondent also used a privacy WhoIs service to hide its identity which confirms bad faith registration and use Moreover the Respondent has chosen not to

faith under the doctrine of passive holding See section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 The Respondent also used a privacy WhoIs service to hide its identity which confirms bad faith registration and use Moreover the Respondent has chosen not to

The Panel is of the view that passively holding a domain name may not lead to bad faith as long as it does not infringe any 3rd party right However the Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name that is confusingly similar to

noncommercial or fair use   Passive holding of a domain name containing a sign confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark disrupts the Complainant's business and is opportunistic registration and use in bad faith Typosquatting is registration

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

and other brands Finally passively holding a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 states While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case factors that have been considered

faith under the doctrine of passive holding See WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 Given the combination of these factors the Panel concludes that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith 7 Decision For the

faith under the doctrine of passive holding According to the Complainant as WOODBRASS trademarks are highly distinctive and well-known in the field of musical equipment and apparatus retailing and as the Complainant has never granted any rights

established that inaction or passive holding can in certain circumstances constitute bad faith use See CBS Broadcasting Inc v Edward Enterprises WIPO Case No D2000-0242 Here with no explanation from Respondent concerning its intent their passive

faith under the doctrine of passive holding 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 include i the degree of

is effectively engaged in passive holding of the disputed domain name within the terms originally established by Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The panel in Telstra noted that the question as to which

City Electric BGE and Pepco Holdings LLC The Complainant owns registrations for EXELON trademarks including the United States trademark registration No 2409546 registered on November 28 2000 The Complainant s subsidiary Pepco Holdings LLC owns

faith under the doctrine of passive holding in this case WIPO Overview 3.0 at section 3.3 Further the Panel also finds that the Respondent s pattern of bad faith conduct has satisfied paragraph 4 b ii of the Policy WIPO Overview 3.0 at section

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