use of it The Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name and the latter is on a blacklist for prior use in relation to spam malware or other bad conduct Lastly the Complainant states that the disputed domain name has been registered

D2004-0935 in Sharman License Holdings Limited v Mario Dolzer 31 January 2006 CAC Case No 101592 in Fujitsu Ltd v Thomas Ruben 18 July 2017 WIPO Case No D2018-2450 in Alibaba Group Holding Limited v Huang Guofeng 26 December 2018 WIPO Case No

decisions have held that the passive holding of a domain name could support by clear and convincing evidence that a domain name is being used in bad faith.  However passive holding does not per se lead in a finding of bad faith use.  See Central

well-established doctrine of passive holding B Respondent 1 The Respondent is a Korean Company which has been working as a global purchasing agent since 20 years ago It represents and buys specific goods or products for its global clients

of bad faith use Applying the passive holding doctrine as summarized in section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 the Panel assesses the Complainant s INSTAGRAM trademark as sufficiently distinctive and even well-known including in Turkey where the

Respondent by registering a passive holding of the disputed domain name would in the absence of any evidence of the Respondent s use or demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with any offering of goods or services

misleading use and the now passive holding of the disputed domain name as well as the intention to sell it indicates that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name Furthermore the disputed domain name does

the established doctrine of passive holding The Panel concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith and therefore finds that the requirements of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy is satisfied

held that either inactive or passive holding of a domain name or offering to sell it for an excessive price may indicate bad faith See e.g Licensing IP International S.à.r.l v Pawel Marcelak FA 1980007 Forum Feb 9 2022 Respondent currently holds

finds that the Respondent s passive holding of the Domain Names supports the finding of bad faith As numerous UDRP panels have held passive holding under the totality of circumstances of the case can constitute a bad faith use under the Policy

Complainant argues that the passive holding of the disputed domain name does not confer any rights or legitimate interests citing to Dr Martens International Trading GmbH and Dr Maertens Marketing GmbH v.GoDaddy.com Inc WIPO Case No D2017-0246

domain names However such passive holding of the disputed domain names does not prevent a finding of registration and use in bad faith see section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 In light of the clear presence of typo squatting which the

name in bad faith and by its passive holding is also using it in bad faith iv The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6

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

concludes that the present passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes a bad faith use putting emphasis on the following the Complainant s trademark OSRAM is famous with a high distinctiveness and is well-known globally the

the registration and passive holding of the disputed domain name by Respondent who has no connection with Complainant supports a finding of bad faith under the Policy For the foregoing reasons the Panel finds that Respondent registered and

3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 passive holding of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith For the reasons set out above the Panel finds that paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy is satisfied 7 Decision For the foregoing reasons 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 The bad faith registration combined with the clear reference to the Complainant's core business the failure to submit a response and the lack of plausibility for a bona fide use lead to the conclusion

the Disputed Domain Name i.e passive holding of domain names See Park Place Entertainment Corporation v Bowno WIPO Case No D2001-1410 and FMV Opinions Inc v the Fair Market Valuation experts WIPO Case No D2002-0372 From all circumstances present