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

previous UDRP panels is that passive holding in itself does not preclude a finding of bad faith The UDRP panels must examine all the circumstances of the case to determine whether a respondent is acting in bad faith See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel

UDRP 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

the circumstances of such passive holding of the domain name the case papers do not contain any information which might evidence on the legitimate fair use of the domain name by the Respondent Therefore the Examiner finds that the Complaint

been used in bad faith on passive holding grounds B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant �s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 4 a of the Policy in order to succeed in this administrative

trademark The Respondent �s passive holding of the Domain Name constitutes use of a domain in bad faith B Respondent The Respondent sent the following email to the Center on June 25 2019 �Dear arbitrator Here is a copy of the email I have sent to

the Disputed Domain Name passively 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 the Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad

of a given case including passive holding 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 given case it is possible that 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

indicate that the doctrine of passive holding in bad faith is applicable See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 First as seen above Complainant �s mark ELECTROLUX is well known Second the disputed domain

fair use Respondent is merely passively holding the domain name The domain name is an instance of typo-squatting Respondents has no rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name There is no conceivable way for Respondent to use the domain

s current use and/or passive holding and without some proof in support the Panel cannot find that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith The Panel found no affirmative extrinsic evidence offered by Complainant

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

both directing to the same holding page that informs that �the website is under maintenance � Passive holding of a domain name can also be an evidence of bad faith use Furthermore email servers have been activated for the disputed domain names

However the non-use or passive holding of a disputed domain name may be found to constitute bad faith under certain circumstances See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows D2000-0003 WIPO Feb 18 2000 after considering all the

to make it resolve to a blank holding page that features an error message Circumstances amounting to a passive holding in bad faith are noted at section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions Third Edition Panel �s

According to the Panel the passive holding of the disputed domain name may amount to bad faith when it is difficult to imagine any plausible future active use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent that would be legitimate and not

further adds that its passive holding cannot be considered as a bona fide offering of goods or services either The Complainant finally affirms that considering the fame of its INSTAGRAM trademark the Respondents were obviously aware of the

further adds that its passive holding cannot be considered as a bona fide offering of goods or services either The Complainant finally affirms that considering the fame of its FACEBOOK trademark the Respondent was obviously aware of the

faith under the doctrine of passive holding Whilst 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