faith under the doctrine of passive holding See section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 In the absence of any evidence or explanation from Respondent the Panel finds that the only plausible basis for registering the Disputed Domain Name has been for

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 The Panel agrees with this view and is of the opinion that the following circumstances provided by the Complainant show that the disputed domain name is being used in bad faith The Complainant s

faith under the doctrine of passive holding see section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 The Respondent s bad faith is also evidenced by its use of a privacy service to obscure its identity Pet Plan Ltd v Mohammed Nahhas WIPO Case No D2021-1964 The

that the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name in no way precludes a finding of bad faith The Complainant submits that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name intentionally and deliberately to attract for

the disputed domain name Passive holding of a domain name can be evidence of bad faith use Negotiations with the Respondent were attempted anonymously but had no chance of success given the prohibitive amount proposed by the Respondent B

determine whether the static holding page still amounts to bad faith use by the Respondent The Panel concludes that the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name does constitute bad faith use The reasoning is as follows i the

in bad faith where there is passive use of a well-known trademark in a domain name Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and Ladbroke Group Plc v Sonoma International LDC WIPO Case No D2002-0131 Under the

faith under the doctrine of passive holding and that in this case the passive holding of the domain equals bad faith use of the disputed domain name the Complainant s trademark is well-known and highly distinctive the disputed domain name is

found that the concept of passive holding may apply even in the event of sporadic use or of the mere parking by a third party of a domain name irrespective of whether the latter should also result in the generation of incidental revenue from

faith under the doctrine of passive holding see section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 The factors that are typically considered when applying the passive holding doctrine include i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant s

corresponding domain name The passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent from making a finding that it was registered and used in bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions In its informal

the Policy in cases of passive holding since Telstra see further WIPO Jurisprudential Overview version 3.0 para 3.3 In that context due weight is placed on the Complainant's assertion that the term SPIRIVA COUPONS is associated with its

was an argument of so-called passive holding in bad faith but the Panel takes the view that this cannot be sustained on the information provided.    It follows that the Complainant is unable to establish the requirement of use in bad faith in

is not reachable Respondent's passive holding of EQONEX 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 Dell Inc v link growth / Digital Marketing FA

domain name followed by a passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes ‘use in bad faith.'  The Panel agrees that the passive holding of a domain name does not necessarily circumvent a finding that the domain name is being used in

is a consensus view about passive holding From the inception of the UDRP panelists have found that the non-use of a domain name including a blank or ‘coming soon page would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive

faith under the doctrine of passive holding The factors that are typically considered when applying the passive holding doctrine include i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant s mark ii the failure of the respondent to

for sale which constitutes passive holding That the Respondent registered the disputed domain name to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant s well-known trademark ARM That the Respondent attempts to capitalize on the goodwill and

faith under the doctrine of passive holding B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings 6.1 Preliminary Issue Language of Proceedings In respect of the language to be used in the