finds that the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name does not avoid a finding of bad faith registration and use as the degree of distinctiveness of the Complainant s mark and the implausibility of any good faith use to which

followed in cases where the passive holding of a domain name without use might otherwise conflict with the requirement under the Policy to prove use or intended use in bad faith The circumstances are partly different in the present case however

faith under the doctrine of passive holding WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 See Telstra Corporative Limited v Nuclear Marshmallow WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Under all the circumstances of this case as described above the Panel is convinced that the

and use see Charles Jourdan Holding AG v AAIM WIPO Case No D2000-0403 Further the Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name in circumstances which point to bad faith registration and use see Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear

has stated The concept of passive holding of a domain name requires Complainant to prove cumulative circumstances found to be indicative of bad faith EUTELSAT S.A v kesk Case No 102237 CAC Jan 4 2019 The burden of proof is on the Complainant to

currently resolve and such passive holding cannot constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under the Policy 2.3 the Respondent can not claim it is known by the disputed domain name 2.4 the Respondent can not assert that it has made

instaprofollow.com is being passively held by the Respondent since its creation cannot constitute bona fide use nor can it confer any rights or legitimate interests in this domain name It has been established by previous UDRP panels that passive

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

faith under the doctrine of passive holding cf WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions Third Edition WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 While panels will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case factors that have

under the doctrine of the passive holding the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith No administratively compliant Response has been filed Rights The Complainant has to the satisfaction of the Panel shown

costs Finally Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name B Respondent s Contentions in this Proceeding Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding The Panel notes that Respondent registered the disputed domain name

that the name resolves to a passively held website which is being used to divert internet traffic away from Complainant Passive holding is not indicative of rights or legitimate interests per Policy Paragraph Paragraph 4 c i or iii See Thermo

asserts Respondent s inactive holding of the citizensbank.org domain name indicates it does not have rights or legitimate interests in the name Inactive holding of a domain name does not demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the name per

possible that a r espondent s passive holding amounts to bad faith The Telstra decision states that paragraph 4 b recognizes that inaction e.g passive holding in relation to a domain name registration can in certain circumstances constitute a

The Complainant cites the passive holding doctrine of Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Telstra and similar cases finding bad faith even without an active website associated with a domain name targeting

to an inactive website The passive holding or non-use of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith See section3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 Furthermore according to the Complaint and unrebutted by the Respondent prior to being

contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith Examples of what may be cumulative circumstances found to be indicative of bad faith include cases in which i the Complainant has a well-known trademark

spent for its registration Passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith since the captured Complainant ™s trademark is well-known and there is no conceivable use that could be made of it that would not amount to an

resolves to an inactive site Passive holding can constitute a factor in finding bad faith registration and use pursuant to the Policy where other circumstances reveals the absence of good faith In this case the disputed domain name incorporates a

to third-party websites The passive holding of a domain name may amount to bad faith when it is difficult to imagine any plausible future active use of a domain name by the respondent that would be legitimate and would not interfere with the