of the Disputed Domain Name passive holding does not prevent a finding of bad faith By using the Disputed Domain Name passively and having no content on its web page other than stating that the website would be coming soon the Respondent

WIPO Overview 3.0 considers passive holding and explains that 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

faith under the doctrine of passive holding � Section 3.3 WIPO Overview 3.0 The WIPO Overview 3.0 further states �While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case factors that have been considered relevant in applying

of the above Respondent �s passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name constitutes use in bad faith B Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant �s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings A Identical or Confusingly Similar As seen at

that the recent non-use or passive holding of the disputed domain names does not preclude a finding of bad faith where the other circumstances of the case point to that conclusion see e.g Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO

purpose which constitutes passive holding of the Domain Name Although the Panel holds that the passive holding doctrine might not satisfactorily apply to the current dispute the Panel agrees that use in bad faith could be demonstrated after

certain circumstances the passive holding of a domain name cannot prevent a finding of 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 names are held passively by the Respondent that this constitutes �passive holding � and that the DNS records for the disputed domain names contain MX and SPF records indicating that the disputed domain names were used in verifying

there is a clear picture of passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name It is not possible to avoid the conclusion that the Respondent is cybersquatting for the purpose of selling of the domain names to the owners of trademarks for valuable

name is currently inactive Passive holding of a domain name can be an evidence of bad faith use Thus the facts that i the Complainant �s trademark is reproduced in its entirety within the disputed domain name ii the Respondent has abstained

have already discussed the passive holding of the Domain Names e.g in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and found that the passive holding itself can constitute a bad faith use The particular

the Respondent �s passive holding of the disputed domain name is indicative of bad faith registration and use Also the Respondent �s bad faith is demonstrated by the Respondent �s failure to respond to a cease-and-desist letter sent to

faith under the doctrine of passive holding It depends on the facts of the case and relevant factors include i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant s mark ii the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to

the Domain Name and it is passively holding the Domain Name B Respondent Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding FINDINGS Paragraph 15 a of the Rules instructs this Panel to decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and

finds that in this case the passive holding infers bad faith As also established in a number of prior cases the concept of bad faith use in paragraph 4 b of the Policy includes not only positive action but also passive holding see Telstra

The Complainant is a German holding company with subsidiaries that operate the Jumia e-commerce platform Jumia was launched by Africa Internet Group �AIG � in Nigeria Morocco South Africa and Egypt in 2012 Jumia Nigeria won the best new retail

of a domain name and passive use of a domain name can be considered as unfair pursuant to article 2 SUCA if such registration is made in order to take advantage of the reputation of a third-party sign or if the registration of the domain

faith under the doctrine of passive holding While panels will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case factors that have been considered relevant include i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant s mark ii the

trade mark the Respondent �s passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name combined with the fact that the Respondent incorporated the Complainant �s well-known mark AMUNDI into the Disputed Domain Name support the fact that the Respondent is acting

the fact that Respondent �s passive holding of the latter already lasts since about 14 years Against this background the Panel has decided to leave it open whether Complainant has also satisfied paragraph 4 a ii and thus the second element of the