faith under the doctrine of passive holding Factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant s mark ii the failure of the respondent to

faith under the doctrine of passive holding The Complainant s INSTAGRAM trademark is distinctive and well known throughout the world and is exclusively associated with the Complainant The Respondent made use of a privacy shield to frustrate the

use 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 1 The record shows that Respondent was willing to transfer the Domain Names for an

domain name The current passive holding or non-use of the disputed domain name under these conditions does not establish any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name American Home Products Corporation v Ben Malgioglio WIPO

faith under the doctrine of passive holding Rights The Complainant has to the satisfaction of the Panel shown the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights within

소위 ‘소극적 보유 passive holding 도 부정한 목적의 사용으로 볼 수 있다 WIPO Overview 3.0 문단 3.3 참조 � 욱이 분쟁도� 인이름 alstomgroub.com 의 주� 부분인 ALSTOM이 신청인의 유명상표 ALTROM과

resolve to any active website passive holding of the Domain Name does not prevent a finding of bad faith P anelists have found that the non-use of a domain name including a blank or ‘coming soon page would not prevent a finding of bad faith under

faith under the doctrine of passive holding See WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 The Panel finds so under the circumstances of this case The Panel has reviewed all elements of this case and in particular the confusing similarity of the disputed

time of this decision such passive holding does not prevent any finding of bad faith Finally the Panel considers that by using the disputed domain name the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to

Under certain circumstances passive holding of a domain name which clearly targeted an established trademark may constitute bad faith use under the UDRP The seminal case in this regard is Telstra Corp v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No

faith under the doctrine of passive holding see section 3.3 of WIPO Overview 3.0 and Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 considers passive holding and explains that While

appropriate to apply the passive holding doctrine See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 As such use in bad faith is found for the following reasons i the degree of distinctiveness and reputation of the

faith under the doctrine of passive holding The totality of the circumstances should be looked at in each case The Complainants contend that the high distinctiveness of WEHEALTH and WEHEALTH by Servier trademarks as well as their reputation and

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 in this case For the reasons above the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith 7 Decision For the foregoing reasons in accordance with paragraphs 4 i

faith under the doctrine of passive holding While previous UDRP 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 the degree of

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

potential phishing scams The passive holding of the remaining disputed domain names does not constitute the Respondent s rights or legitimate interests iii The Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith The

falls into the category of passive holding The Complainant has tried to reach the Respondent by a cease-and-desist letter sent on 2 October 2020 As the Respondent was under privacy shield the letter was sent to the privacy email as provided in

trademark and subsequent passive holding of such a domain is viewed by the Examiner as bad faith The Respondent has not submitted any evidences confirming circumstances listed in URS Procedure 5.7 In the absence of any defense which might have