G 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 bad faith within the requirements of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy See VideoLink Inc v Xantech

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

site This amounts to a passive holding and the factors usually reviewed by panels in this regard are set out at paragraph 3.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel View on Selected UDRP Questions Third Edition �WIPO Overview 3.0 � In view of

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 fully includes the Complainant s trademark INTESA SANPAOLO In addition the Panel notes that

contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith The panel must examine all the circumstances of the case to determine whether the respondent is acting in bad faith Examples of what may be cumulative

took over all the active and passive assets of the merged company in all contractual relations actions rights and obligations of the latter of any nature A trademark owner affiliate such a subsidiary of a parent or of a holding company or an

and services The current passive holding of the disputed domain name can satisfy the requirement of bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant contentions 6 Discussion and Findings 6.1 Language of Proceeding

name in bad faith because the passive holding of a domain name may be considered bad faith use The Complainants point out that the Respondent could change the redirection of the disputed domain name or activate the disputed domain name email

Respondent does not use or passively holds the domain name BMWCERTIFIED.COM The Respondent registration of the dispute domain names for coming soon websites is analogous to non-use or passive holding and his non-use or passive holding of the

constitutes bad faith use as passive holding As stated in the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions Third Edition WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.5 there is consensus about passive holding as follows From the inception of the

name the Respondent is now passively holding the disputed domain name which also constitutes bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not formally reply to the Complainant �s contentions The Panel notes that the Respondent sent an email to the

the Disputed Domain Name The passive holding or non-use of domain names is in appropriate circumstances evidence of a lack of rights or legitimate interests in the domain names see Red Bull GmbH v Credit du Léman SA Jean-Denis Deletraz WIPO Case

faith under the principles of passive holding It is consensus view that the lack of an active use of a domain name does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy In such cases the panel must examine all the circumstances of the

site is constitutve of the passive holding of a domain name see in this regard Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Decision No D2004-0615 Comerica Inc v Horoshiy Inc concerning just the case of a bank

of Complainant s rights and passive holding of the domain name that would support findings of bad faith registration and use and/or passive holding The Examiner finds that Respondent registered and used and/or passively held the disputed domain

that this is a case of passive holding in bad faith and therefore use in bad faith The Examiner finds clear and convincing evidence that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith Accordingly URS Procedure 1.2.6.3

in the name of Sin Nombre Holdings On November 9 2013 the Respondent added his personal name as �Registrant Name � to the registrant data for the Disputed Domain Name and changed the listed �Registrant Organization � from Sin Nombre Holdings to

and the Respondent �s passive holding of the disputed domain name suggest that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith For all of the above reasons the Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed

and the Respondent �s passive holding of the disputed domain name suggest that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith For all of the above reasons the Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed

for an application of the passive holding doctrine See WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 and Telstra supra The AMADEUS mark is distinctive and well established and the Respondent has failed to offer plausible legitimate reasons for using it in the