interests through such passive holding The Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name The Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith The

contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith � Rather a panel must examine �all of the circumstances � including for example whether a complainant has a well-known trademark and whether a respondent

家组裁决 Alibaba Group Holding Limited 诉 xiumin yang yangxiumin 案件编号：D2019-0714 1 � 事人双方 本案投诉人� �Alibaba Group Holding Limited，其位于� 曼群岛� �投诉人的授权代理人� �CSC Digital Brand Services

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

mark Furthermore Respondent s passive holding of the domain name is not a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use Finally Respondent s skechers.site domain name was registered and is being used in bad

Complainant asserts that even passive holding of the disputed domain name will not prevent a finding of bad faith and use per Section 3.2 of WIPO overview The Complainant explains in the absence of any explanation from the Respondent it is

since at least 2015 � The passive holding of an identical domain to Complainant distinctive trade mark constitutes use in bad faith � In the absence of any explanation from Respondent it seems reasonable to infer that Respondent registered the

faith under the doctrine of passive holding � Having regard to all elements of the case at hand and in particular to the fact that the only distinctive element in the disputed domain name is the Complainant �s trademark the high degree of

faith under the doctrine of passive holding It depends on the facts of the case and the failure of the Respondent to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good faith use is a relevant factor Typosquatting amounts to paradigm bad faith

and the Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name In the circumstances of this case where the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant �s trademark where on the balance of probabilities the disputed domain name

a �404 error � message Such passive holding under the circumstances of this case also constitutes bad faith registration and use Accor So Luxury HMC v Youness Itsmail WIPO Case No D2015-0287 The Complainant has satisfied the third requirement

used is to be considered as passive holding The incorporation of a famous mark into a domain name coupled with an inactive website is to be considered as bad faith registration and use Decision For all the reasons stated above the Complaint is

There it was held that �the passive use of a widely known trade mark in a domain name where there is no response and no explanation as to why the use could be good faith � can amount to registration and use in bad faith It is submitted that the

active use of the domain name passive holding does not prevent a finding of bad faith See WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 A principle widely adopted by panels has been to examine all the surrounding circumstances in which a disputed domain name may

to any active websites passive holding of the Domain Name does not prevent 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

the disputed domain name Passive holding of the disputed domain name does not preclude bad faith The disputed domain name can only be taken as intending to cause confusion among Internet users as to the source of the disputed domain name and

domain name in bad faith by passively holding it without a legitimate purpose A further indication of passive holding in bad faith is that the disputed domain name WHOIS information is redacted and the identity of the real owner is concealed B

implausible Thus the current passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith see e.g Abbott Diabetes Care Inc v Privacy Protection Hosting Ukraaine LLC / �'италий Б� оцман Vitalii Brocman WIPO Case

legitimate purpose Generally passive holding of a disputed domain name may demonstrate bad faith under Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See VideoLink Inc v Xantech Corporation FA1503001608735 Forum May 12 2015 Failure to actively use a domain name is

legitimate or fair use Passive holding can be registration and use in bad faith The Domain Name is obviously connected with a particular trade mark owner and registration by someone with no connection to the trade mark owner supports a