faith under the doctrine of passive holding see 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

mark ii the Respondent �s passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name and iii the fact that the Respondent incorporated the Complainant �s well-known AGFA mark into the Disputed Domain Name B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the

domain name in bad faith passive holding is within the concept of bad faith usage B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant �s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 4 a of the Policy the Complainant

that this is otherwise a passive holding of the disputed domain name by the Respondent which in the circumstances and in the absence of explanation by the Respondent amounts to a holding in bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not reply

the Disputed Domain Name passively to resolve to a landing page having no substantive content the Respondent has registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith It has long been held in UDRP decisions that the passive or inactive

rightly contends that the passive holding of a disputed domain name can constitute a factor in finding bad faith registration and use pursuant to paragraph 4 a iii Previous panels indeed held that bad faith can be found where the respondent

the trademark 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 that

the at-issue domain name passively Browsing to the domain name displays an empty webpage Respondent s inactive holding of the bitmex-coin.com domain name constitutes neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy Paragraph 4 c

alter this conclusion since passive holding of a domain name containing a famous trademark can still constitute bad faith There is no suggestion that the Respondent had any intention of legitimate use that it enjoys a legitimate connection to the

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

active use of the domain name passive holding including a blank or �coming soon � page does not prevent a finding of bad faith See WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and Polaroid

Name The Panel finds that the passive holding of the Domain Name coupled with the fame of the Complainant �s trademark evidences bad faith �It has long been generally held in UDRP decisions that the passive holding of a domain name that

the circumstances in which passive holding of a domain name may constitute bad faith In general if a domain name registrant has registered a well-known trademark without any plausible good faith use a panel may draw the inference that the

Domain Name has not been used Passive holding of a Domain Name containing a trademark and holding a Domain Name containing a mark with a reputation for no good reason is registration and use in bad faith Using a privacy service is also indicative

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

that the Respondent s passive holding of the domain name in this particular case satisfies the requirement of paragraph 4 a iii that the domain name is being used in bad faith by Respondent See also Univision Comm'cns Inc v Norte FA 1000079

the Disputed Domain Name is passive holding This does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding The Disputed Domain Name could be interpreted to communicate that the Complainant provides or manufactures edibles This

Complainants argue that the passive holding of the domain name does not confer any rights or legitimate interests Also according to the Complainants the Respondents are not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Names and are in no way affiliated

iv the Respondent �s current passive holding of the Domain Name is not a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under the UDRP v the Respondent is not and has not been

is not a case of prolonged passive holding It is not in the Panel opinion indicative of bad faith for a domain name registrant to fail to immediately direct the disputed domain name to an active page within a few months of registration Website