the Policy that the mere passive holding of a disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of use in bad faith In the circumstances of the present case it is not difficult to envisage the harm that could accrue to the Complainant if the

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 submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated

of a mere coincidence The passive holding of a domain name reflecting a famous trademark is indicative of bad faith use and registration B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings 6.1

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 submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated

inactive website inaction or passive holding of a disputed domain name may fall within the concept of the domain name being used in bad faith See Telstra Corporative Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No 2000-0003 Here the reputation of the

bmw-ista.com in bad faith by passively holding it without a legitimate purpose B Respondents The Respondents did not reply to the Complainant s contentions In particular the currently named registrant of the domain name bmw-ista.com did not submit

accuses the Respondent of passive holding which would also evidence bad faith Moreover the Complainant submits that the Respondent has demonstrated a pattern of bad faith conduct as the Complainant has obtained a transfer decision in a previous

also refer to the passive holding doctrine regarding domain names as set up in the Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions Third Edition

Rules having regard to the passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name and the prior use and fame of the Complainant s trademarks B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings Under

used under the doctrine of passive holding non-use does not prevent a finding of bad faith Section 3.3 the WIPO Overview 3.0 All of the factors relevant to passive holding listed in section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 point to the

and Respondent s current passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name constitutes bad faith under the doctrine set forth in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to

gain and the subsequent passive holding of the disputed domain name the Panel finds in all the circumstances that the requisite element of bad faith has been made out The Panel considers it is inconceivable the Respondent was not aware of the

inactive website inaction or passive holding of a disputed domain name falls within the concept of the domain name being used in bad faith See Telstra Corporative Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Prior UDRP panels have held

and use in bad faith was the passive holding of the domain name following the well known approach in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The present case is rather different in that 1 there is evidence of use

pursuant to the doctrine of passive holding as the disputed domain name is not being used in connection with an active website Respondent has failed to respond to Complainant s letter of April 13 2020 Respondent has masked its identity on the

3.0 section 3.3 states that passive holding or non-use of a domain name may support a finding of bad faith In particular While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case factors that have been considered relevant in

circumstances under which the passive holding of a domain name will be considered to be a bad faith registration While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case factors that have been considered relevant in applying the

such use The Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name and is therefore not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of it All of the above is sufficient to establish a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or

is not currently being used Passive holding of a domain name containing an established third party mark can be bad faith registration and use See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows D2000-0003 WIPO Feb 18 2000   As such the Panel

and squarely within the passive holding doctrine first established by Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows supra and further described in paragraph 3.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions Third