Furthermore the non-use or passive holding of the disputed domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy For all the foregoing reasons the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being

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

context of the principles of passive holding Section 3.3 of WIPO Overview 3.0 explains that from the inception of the UDRP panels have found that the non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive

faith under the doctrine of passive holding including i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant s mark ii the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith

that the prior use and the passive holding does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services nor to a non commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name under the Policy Moreover Respondent is not an authorized licensee of

Name Complainant argues that passive holding of a domain name that incorporates a well-known trademark without obvious legitimate purpose can be deemed bad faith use pursuant to paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy Complainant contends that the Domain

to an active webpage such passive holding may still be in bad faith When a domain name is being passively held the question of bad faith use does not squarely fall under one of the aforementioned non-exhaustive factors set out in paragraph 4 b

faith under the doctrine of passive holding The Panel has hence reviewed all elements of this case and attaches particular relevance to the following elements to assert use in bad faith Firstly the Panel notes that when it registered the disputed

matter a finding of bad faith passive holding is perfectly in order and probably more appropriate than the reference to the operation of a PPC scheme Indeed the Panel cannot foresee any use in good faith of a domain name which targets the

falls within the doctrine of passive holding and the principles set out initially in the decision of Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 See also Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A v Leone Toscano CAC Case No 103819

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

� 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 Telstra Corporation Limited v

active use of the domain name Passively holding a domain name does not show a legitimate use or a bona fide offering of good and services under Policy �� 4 c i or iii See Dell Inc v link growth / Digital Marketing FA 1785283 Forum June 7 2018

家组裁决 Alibaba Group Holding Limited 诉 时玉祥（Shi Yuxiang） 案件编号：D2021-1296 1 � 事人双方 本案投诉人是Alibaba Group Holding

Complainant asserts that this passive holding of a domain name is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name especially because of the addition of the logo of a competitor � B

faith under the doctrine of passive holding WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 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

similar domain name simply by holding such domain name passively is not indicative of a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy �� 4 c i nor of a non-commercial or fair use under Policy �� 4 c iii See Activision Blizzard Inc /

invoices and Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name given the lack of any present legitimate use by Respondent B Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings To succeed in its

faith under the doctrine of passive holding see WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 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

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