PANEL DECISION Alibaba Group Holding Limited v De Chinese Handelsplaats B.V Case No DNL2019-0027 1 The Parties The Complainant is Alibaba Group Holding Limited Cayman Islands United Kingdom represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB Sweden The

Respondent maintains a passive holding of the disputed domain name Although the disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website it is being used to send emails purportedly from Complainant with a view to fraudulently obtain

of this case Respondent �s passive holding of websites �coming soon � does not establish rights or confer legitimate interests in the disputed domain names Guinness World Records Limited v Solution Studio WIPO Case No D2016-0186 The Respondent

it is common practice that passive holding of a domain name can be considered bad faith if the Complainant s mark has a strong reputation and the Respondent has provided no evidence of any actual or contemplated good faith use by it of the

website i.e the Respondent is passively holding it The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant �s cease-and-desist letter The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith The Respondent �s registration of the disputed

�s current non-use or passive holding of the Domain Name is further evidence that it does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name See e.g BMW v Weiss WIPO Case No D2017-2145 �The Panel agrees that the use of the

a claim of bad faith passive holding and indicates in particular that that it has �conducted thorough searches to try to establish whether the Respondent would have any rights in the name ZANUSSI in conjunction similar goods and services

of bad faith based upon passive holding a longer period of inactivity would provide stronger support for such an inference Here the ksl.cloud domain name was registered on August 25 2019 and Complainant initiated this case on September 19

that Respondent is passively holding the Domain Name but asserts that any attempt to actively use the Domain Name would inevitably lead to a likelihood of confusion as to the source sponsorship affiliation or endorsement of Respondent �s

domain name constitutes a passive holding in bad faith The purpose of registering the disputed domain name can only to have been to confuse Internet users as to the true ownership of the disputed domain name There is no plausible good faith

Complainant points out that passive holding without demonstrable preparations for use of a disputed domain name under circumstances where there is no evidence of any fair and legitimate use and the domain names at issue are offered for sale is

Name alstomtechnology.com Passive holding of a domain name is not an obstacle to a finding of bad faith In the present case it is rather an indication of bad faith when used in a web site whose sole purpose is the sale of the Domain Name

or fair use Typosquatting and passive holding are both indicative of bad faith use and registration per se Typosquatting indicates knowledge on the part of the Respondent of the Complainant and its rights B Respondent Respondent failed to submit a

by reason of the principle of passive holding as first enunciated in the case of Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The Panel finds that the reasoning set out in that case applies with equal force here The

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

faith under the doctrine of passive holding UDRP panels rather 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 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 at-issue domain name passively Browsing to the domain name displays a parked webpage Respondent s inactive holding of the bitmex-blog.info domain name constitutes neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy Paragraph 4 c

of a given case including passive holding in making its bad faith analysis See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows Case No D2000-0003 WIPO Feb 18 2000 after considering all the circumstances of a given case it is possible that a

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