la fattispecie del c.d passive holding indice di mala fede B Resistente Il Resistente non ha risposto al Ricorso presentato dalla Ricorrente e non si è in presenza di circostanze eccezionali che giustifichino tale inadempienza 6 Discussione

registrar on the basis of the passive holding doctrine it does not avoid a finding of bad faith from the Panel see Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Names have been

appears to be inactive The passive holding of a domain name may amount to bad faith when it is difficult to imagine any plausible future active use of a domain name by the respondent that would be legitimate and would not interfere with the

Edmunds.com Inc v Triple E Holdings Limited WIPO Case No D2006-1095 The disputed domain name bibendum.work resolves to an inactive page This state of inactivity does not mean that the disputed domain name is used in good faith Indeed passive

to active websites but their passive holding can constitute a factor in finding bad faith registration and use pursuant to the Policy since they are confusingly similar to the TIK TOK trademark and can only be taken as intending to cause confusion

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 FACEBOOK trademark as sufficiently distinctive and even well-known including in Turkey where the

implausible Thus the current passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith see e.g Abbott Diabetes Care Inc v Privacy Protection Hosting Ukraaine LLC / Ð'италий Броцман Vitalii Brocman WIPO Case

which the Complainant submits passive holding that constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy paragrah 4 a iii as identified in Telstra Corp v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The Complainant also cites Alitalia-Linee

faith under the doctrine of passive holding In this regard the Panel takes into account i the high degree of distinctiveness and reputation of the Complainant s trademark ii the failure of the Respondent to submit a response or to provide any

to active websites but their passive holding does not prevent a finding of bad faith because the circumstances of the case are indicative of bad faith the Complainant s NOVARTIS trademark is well-known the Respondent has not filed a Response to

of the Respondent instead passively holding a domain name can constitute a factor in finding bad faith registration and use pursuant to paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy See DCI S.A v Link Commercial Corp WIPO Case No D2000-1232 in which the

of bad faith under the passive holding doctrine see e.g Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Having considered the totality of the circumstances the reasons for this include most compellingly i the

nor does the Respondent s passive holding of the domain name amount to making a legitimate non commercial or fair use of it Furthermore the registration of the disputed domain name being identical to the Complainant s mark carries with it a

domain name passively Browsing to the at-issue domain name returns a blank page  Respondent's passive holding of the domain name is indicative of neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4 c i nor a

submits that the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name does not preclude a finding of bad faith in the attendant circumstances of this case citing Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 B

s website or location Passively holding a domain name cannot prevent a finding of bad faith WIPO Overview section 3.3 This includes domain names such as the disputed domain name that may have never resolved to any website content Where a

PANEL DECISION Robeco Holding B.V v Jeng Mungao Case No D2020-3031 1 The Parties The Complainant is Robeco Holding B.V Netherlands represented by NLO Shieldmark B V Netherlands The Respondent is Jeng Mungao China 2 The Domain Name and

faith under the doctrine of passive holding see WIPO Overview 3.0 paragraph 3.3 The test to apply is that of the totality of circumstances In doing so we must look to i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant s mark ii the

to use it a practice called passive holding   Because Respondent makes no use of the domain name it cannot be said to use it in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services within the contemplation of Policy ¶ 4 c ii   See for

disputed domain name has been passively held as it has remained inactive since its registration Prior UDRP panels have found bad faith passive holding in the presence of specific circumstances including where the Complainant has a well-known