asserts Respondent s inactive holding of the other group of disputed domain names indicates it does not have rights or legitimate interests in the names Inactive holding of a domain name does not demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the

found that inactive use or passive holding of the disputed domain name by a respondent permits the inference that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain names Here Complainant provides screenshots of the disputed

in this case the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name should be considered bad faith use of the disputed domain name B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings In

Panel finds the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name to amount to bad faith use Last but not least the Panel notes that there are no facts set out in the available record which could possibly justify the registration or passive

�被投诉人被动持有着 passive holding 。 5 � 事人双方主张 A 投诉人 投诉⼈主张，� � ⽴即将争议域名转移给投诉⼈，理� �如下： 争议域名完全包含了投诉人在先注册并已经⼴泛使�

faith under the doctrine of passive holding WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 Relevant factors should be taken into consideration such as degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant s mark the failure of the respondent to submit a

faith under the doctrine of passive holding It is the view of this Panel that the Respondent has intentionally registered the disputed domain name which consists of an evident misspelling of the First Complainant s trademark BARRY CALLEBAUT In

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 see WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 The Complainant s trademark has a high degree of distinctiveness The Respondent has also chosen to hide behind a privacy shield The Respondent has not provided any

disputed domain name has been passively held and the Respondent is currently permitting the disputed domain name to resolve to an inactive website In deciding whether the passive holding of a disputed domain name may result in a finding of bad

in UDRP decisions that the passive or inactive holding of a domain name that incorporates registered trademarks without a legitimate Internet purpose may indicate that the domain name is being used in bad faith under paragraph 4 a iii of 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

at the disputed domain name Passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent the Panel from finding registration and use in bad faith The Panel further notes that the undeveloped use of the website at the disputed domain name which

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

directly under the rubric of passive holding as first enunciated in the case of Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and followed in countless cases since The Panel finds bad faith use in line with the

faith registration and use Passive holding of a domain name containing third party marks with a reputation can be bad faith registration and use The Respondent failed to answer a cease and desist letter from the Complainant B Respondent

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 the

active website and that such passive holding shall not constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services under the Policy especially taking into account the fact that the Respondent was previously using instagramdb.com and is currently using

that this is also a case of passive holding It contends that the use of a privacy service and the registration of the corporate name and trade mark of a well-known company as a domain name also betoken bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did

of Policy Paragraph 4 b passive holding of a domain name has often been held to be evidence of bad faith VideoLink Inc v Xantech Corporation FA1503001608735 Forum May 12 2015 Failure to actively use a domain name is evidence of bad faith