bad faith exists under the passive holding doctrine which panels routinely have found can establish bad faith Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 While panelists will look at the totality of the

and reputation 3 Respondent's passive holding of the disputed domain name does not preclude a finding of bad faith given the circumstances of this case including in particular the well-known character of Complainant's INSTAGRAM trademark and

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

indicating a bad faith passive holding are present Finally the Respondent claims the Complaint was filed in an attempt at reverse domain name hijacking on the basis that the Complainant should have known that it could not demonstrate that

to an active website The passive holding of a domain name does not show a legitimate use or bona fide offering of goods or services See Teachers Ins and Annuity Ass n of Am v Wreaks Commc ns Group D2006-0483 WIPO June 15 2006 passive holding

to an inactive website The passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith See section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 In the absence of any supporting assertions or evidence from the Respondent the Panel finds

As previous panels have held passive holding does not preclude a finding of bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions 6 Discussion and Findings The Panel is of the opinion that the Complainant's

fact that the Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name can also be characterized as bad faith use In particular in Intel Corporation v The Pentium Group WIPO Case No D2009-0273 and in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear

bring Respondent's heretofore passive holding within the scope of the doctrine first articulated in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Again given the strength of the mark in question and Respondent's

domain name constitutes a passive holding in bad faith This concept is explained at section 3.3 of WIPO Overview 3.0 In the Panel s view however the Complainant has failed to establish passive holding in bad faith As mentioned above the term

this is in essence a case of passive holding since registration in conjunction with the minimal difference between the disputed Domain Name and the registered trademark It can be difficult for a Panel to find use in bad faith where a Complaint is

or fair use nor can passive use The Domain Name has been registered and used in bad faith Typosquatting and using a site imitating Complainant s web site on the Domain Name which is highly similar to Complainant s web address where the

domain name constitutes a passive holding in bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant contentions 6 Discussion and Findings A Identical or Confusingly Similar to a name in respect of which a right or rights are

constitutes a passive holding in bad faith as explained in section 3.3 of WIPO Overview 3.0 including on grounds of the distinctiveness of the Complainant's mark the failure of the Respondent to respond and the implausibility of any

not in and of itself proof of passive holding in bad faith To establish passive holding in bad faith UDRP panels typically review the totality of the circumstances in each case and consider a number of factors such as i the degree of

this can be considered as passive holding The Complainant notes that the Disputed domain name has been registered with a whois privacy service The Complainant adds that after the registrar verification it appears that the Respondent registered

when registering and holding the Domain Name that has not yet resolved to an active website In any event the passive holding of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith see Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows

removal of this page and passive holding following receipt of the cease-and-desist letter and the rejection of its proposal that the Complainant should purchase the disputed domain name from it is indicative of a strong likelihood that the

�被投诉人被动持有 passive holding 。 5 � 事人双方主张 A 投诉人 投诉人主张，� � 立即将被投诉人注册并正在使� �的争议域名转移给投诉人。理� �如下：

Paragraph 4 a iii 11 The passive holding of the disputed domain names in sum with Respondent s registration of multiple domain names incorporating Complainant s marks establishes a pattern of bad faith registration In addition Respondent s