faith under the doctrine of passive holding B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 15 a of the Rules the Panel shall decide the Complaint in accordance with the

s demand letter and the passive holding of the disputed domain name The Complainant has cited previous decisions under the Policy particularly Arm Limited v Privacy Administrator Anonymize Inc / Sarbel Bandak WIPO Case No D2021-0594 which it

The Complainant is the holding company of a group of companies providing investment and asset management services The Complainant itself owns multiple registrations for trademarks that are not relevant to this dispute However one of its

use under the doctrine of passive holding The factors usually considered material to such an assessment have been set out in a number of earlier decisions of UDRP panels including by way of example in Johnson & Johnson v Daniel Wistbacka WIPO

in terms of the doctrine of passive holding B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings A Identical or Confusingly Similar Where the trade mark is recognisable in the domain name the

the disputed domain name The passive holding of a domain name has been held to be the use of the domain name in bad faith The very use of a domain name by someone with no connection with the Complainant suggests opportunistic bad faith 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

faith under the doctrine of passive holding See section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions Third Edition WIPO Overview 3.0 The Complainant succeeds on the third element of the Policy in relation to the

faith exists pursuant to the passive-holding doctrine where the following factors are considered when evaluating whether passive holding amounts to bad faith whether a the complainant s trademark has a strong reputation and is widely known as

faith under the doctrine of passive holding See WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 Accordingly the Panel finds that Respondent has registered and is using the Domain Names in bad faith and Complainant succeeds under the third element of paragraph 4 a

bad faith Even in instance of passive holding a panel may infer bad faith registration when weighing the totality of the circumstances See Pixers Ltd v Whois Privacy Corp WIPO Case No D2015-1171 Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows

faith under the doctrine of passive holding See section 3.3 WIPO Overview 3.0 In light of the above taking into consideration all cumulative circumstances of this case on the balance of probabilities the Panel considers that the disputed domain

name the domain name has been passively held It has been a well-known consensus as held by UDRP panels 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.� 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

faith under the doctrine of passive holding see Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 As considered in the referred decision some relevant factors must be considered in applying the passive holding doctrine

is effectively engaged in passive holding of the disputed domain name within the terms originally established by Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The panel in Telstra noted that the question as to which

resolve to an inactive page passive holding since registration so there is no use The Respondent has not come forward and has advanced no basis on which we could conclude that he has a right or legitimate interest in the domain names and none is

faith under the doctrine of passive holding See section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 In the circumstances of this case the Panel finds that the Respondent s non-use of the Dispute Domain Name does not prevent a finding of bad faith Accordingly

circumstances of inaction passive holding other than those identified in paragraphs 4 b i ii and iii can constitute a domain name being used in bad faith concluding that the question can only be answered in respect of the particular facts of a

faith under the doctrine of passive holding See WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 Here the present circumstances including the distinctiveness and reputation of the AUCHAN marks the failure of Respondent to submit a formal response to the Complaint