found that inactive use or passive holding of the disputed domain name by a respondent permits the inference that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain names Here Complainant provides screenshots of the disputed

of bad faith use Applying the passive holding doctrine as summarized in section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 the Panel assesses the Complainant s non-dictionary trademark 1XBET as sufficiently distinctive so that any descriptive use of the

Complainant s trade mark The Passive Domains which are similar to the Active Domains and were registered on the same date as one of them are plainly part of the same illicit scheme In the Panel s view each of the Passive Domains constitutes a

were registered and are being passively used in bad faith by the Respondent The factors which are normally taken into account for a finding of bad faith passive holding are listed in section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected

panelists have held that passive holding of a domain name could amount to use in bad faith Factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the

domain name commonly called passive holding is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services by means of the domain name under Policy ¶ 4 c i nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of it under Policy ¶ 4 c iii such as would confirm in

faith under the doctrine of passive holding Having regard to all elements of the case at hand and in particular to the fact that the only distinctive element in the disputed domain name is the Complainant s trademark the global fame of the

circumstances under which the passive holding of a domain name will be considered to be in bad faith While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive

faith under the doctrine of passive holding When looking at the totality of the circumstances in this case the Panel finds that the Complainant s trademark has been used for over 40 years the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the

panelists have held that passive holding of a domain name could amount to use in bad faith Factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the

and no more Respondent's passive holding of the at-issue domain name in this manner 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 Nutri/System

that inactive use called passive holding of a disputed domain name by a UDRP respondent   permits the inference that … respondent … lacks rights and legitimate interests in the challenged domain names   The Panel therefore finds that

of a given case including passive holding through non-use of a domain name in making its bad faith analysis See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows Case No D2000-0003 WIPO Feb 18 2000 after considering all the circumstances of a

to the Complainant's activity passive holding The Respondent is not using the disputed domain name According to the Panel a passive holding of the disputed domain name may amount to bad faith when it is difficult to imagine any plausible future

notes that for a finding of passive holding it is necessary to have in mind the totally of the circumstances of the case Here the facts alleged in the Complaint the lack of the Respondent s rights or legitimate interests and the lack of response

Domain Name resolves to a passive holding page 5 Parties Contentions A Complainant The Complainant s contentions can be summarized as follows Identical or confusingly similar The Complainant states that the Disputed Domain Name incorporates in

in bad faith where there is passive holding of a domain name comprising a widely-known trademark where there is no explanation as to why the use could be in good faith Accordingly the Complainant submits that the Respondent has registered and

usado que la tenencia pasiva passive holding de un nombre de dominio puede constituir mala fe III Registro o uso de mala fe Que el Titular registró el nombre de dominio en disputa 1 para hospedar un sitio web que opera en el mismo giro y de la

of its claim of non-use or passive holding of the disputed domain name The Panel notes in fact that the Complainant only submitted evidence that at the time of filing of the Complaint a sub-page i.e the url https //www.bolloreworldtrans.com/

is generally recognized that passive holding of a domain name does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith use As stated in Dr Martens International Trading GmbH and Dr Maertens Marketing GmbH v Godaddy.com Inc WIPO Case No D2017-0246 t he