However under the doctrine of passive holding see WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 and cases thereunder such as Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 the Panel finds that the totality of the circumstances supports

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 non-dictionary trademark PRETECTED as sufficiently distinctive so that any descriptive or fair use of

that the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith in all the circumstances of the case The Complainant further submits that the Respondent ignored a cease and desist communication sent

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 non-dictionary trademark INSTAGRAM as sufficiently distinctive so that any descriptive use of the

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

shows no content the passive holding of a domain name amounts to use in bad faith Since the disputed domain name contains the well-known SIEMENS mark any unauthorized use of the disputed domain name may result in bad faith Complainant

the Complainant The current passive holding of the disputed domain name is also evidence of bad faith from the Respondent Previous UDRP panels have found that the apparent lack of so-called active use of the domain name without any active attempt

the case the Panel finds that passive holding of the disputed domain names amounts to acting in bad faith The Respondent did not provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use It is difficult to conceive of any plausible use of the

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

with regard to the alleged passive holding of the disputed domain name along the lines of Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 in that there is no evidence that the Complainant s trademark has a strong

disputed domain name has been passively held without any operative website to which it may resolve and displays an error message According to the Complainant the non-use of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the

this Panel finds that the passive holding of the disputed domain name amounts to bad faith use   This Panel finds therefore that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith Because Complainant has therefore succeeded

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

this Panel shares that the passive holding of a domain name with knowledge that the domain name infringes another party s trade mark rights may in itself be regarded as evidence of bad faith registration and use see for example WIPO Case No

used the Domain Name such passive holding of the Domain Name cannot preclude a finding of bad faith given the overall circumstances of the case notably given the Complainants distinctiveness and renown worldwide and the Respondent s failure to

not resolve to a web site Passive holding is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use It is registration and use in bad faith   B Respondent   Respondent failed to submit a Response in this

faith under the Policy The passive holding of one of the disputed domain names does not prevent a finding of bad faith Accordingly the Complainant has satisfied this third element of the Policy 7 Decision For the foregoing reasons in accordance

decisions confirmed that the passive holding of a domain name with knowledge that the domain name infringes another party s trademark rights is evidence of bad faith registration and use see in this regard Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear

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

factors when applying the passive holding doctrine see paragraph 3.3 WIPO Overview 3.0 the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the Complainant s mark the failure of the Respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual