fall into the definition of passive holding which should be deemed bad-faith use the Complainant submits Furthermore the Respondent did not reply to the aforementioned cease-and-desist letter which the Complainant sent through the registrar since

circumstances of this case passive holding of the disputed domain name allianzleiloes.com does not prevent a finding of bad faith 6.28 The Center s case law has consistently found evidence of bad faith in similar situations First Data

inactive this would amount to passive holding see section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 and the circumstances support a finding of bad faith on this basis The Panel notes in this respect i the repute of the Complainant s mark ii the failure of the

faith under the doctrine of passive holding While UDRP panels 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

Panel finds that Respondent's passive holding of the domain name demonstrates a lack of rights and legitimate interests.� See Ziegenfelder Co v VMH Enter Inc D2000-0039 WIPO Mar 14 2000 finding that failure to provide a product or service or

Domain Name has not been used Passive holding can evidence registration and use in bad faith under the Policy See Indiana University v Ryan G Foo / PPA Media Services FA1411001588079 Forum Dec 28 2014 Under the circumstances Respondent's seemingly

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

section 3.3 deals with the passive holding or non-use of a domain name The general view is that the non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith but that each case depends on the totality of the circumstances A number of

May 2019 Respondent has been passively holding the disputed domain name He has not responded to Complainant s cease-and-desist letter of 6 April 2020 and uses privacy shield to avoid to tell his identity   NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE

has since registration made a passive holding of the disputed domain name The factors that panels have previously considered to amount to a passive holding in bad faith are set out at section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected

if the Panel finds so-called passive holding in bad faith.� The concept of passive holding in bad faith was first laid out in Telstra�Corporation Limited�v Nuclear�Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003.� Although Complainant has done little to

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

�被投诉人被动持有 passive holding 。根据先前案例，被动持有争议域名并不阻碍� 家组根据所有的证据认定被投诉人恶意使�

mark The Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain names does not preclude a finding of bad faith in the attendant circumstances of this case As set forth in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows supra the relevant

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

The Complainant refers to the passive holding doctrine of Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and argues that there is no likely legitimate use of the Domain Name nor one that would not be actionable B

mark The Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain names does not preclude a finding of bad faith in the attendant circumstances of this case As set forth in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows supra the relevant

domain name in bad faith by passively holding it without a legitimate purpose B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions but sent an informal communication to the Center on September 15 2020 stating Hi please

domain name in bad faith by passively holding it without a legitimate purpose B Respondent The Respondent submitted a short Response which reads as follows Hi my domain name is INSTAGRAMS HOES.com which refers to loose women on social media I am

and that the Respondent's passive holding of the disputed domain name is evidence of bad faith RESPONDENT No administratively compliant Response has been filed Rights The Complainant has to the satisfaction of the Panel shown the disputed