Americas LLC KCG IP Holdings LLC v Qiang Wei Case No D2019-0619 1 The Parties The Complainants are Citadel Enterprise Americas LLC of Chicago Illinois United States of America �USA � or �U.S � and KCG IP Holdings LLC of Chicago Illinois

WIPO Overview 3.0 considers passive holding by a respondent and explains that �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

submitted the Respondent �s passive holding of the disputed domain name is not a bar to a finding of bad faith where the other circumstances of the case point to that conclusion see e.g Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case

active web site i.e has been passively held As established in a number of prior cases the concept of bad faith use in paragraph 4 b of the Policy includes not only positive action but also passive holding especially in cases of domain name

this non-use constitutes passive holding which is a sign of bad faith use and the Complainant relies on three prior UDRP decisions on passive holding The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names cicbanqueparis.net cicbanqueparis.org

enterprise In addition the passive holding of the disputed domain name has to be considered a use in bad faith The Complainant finally notes that the Respondent did not reply to the cease and desist letter sent by the Complainant attorneys

under certain circumstances passive holding of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bath faith In this respect the following factors without limitation have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine i the degree of

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 elements in the disputed domain names are the Complainant �s trademarks the initial use of all

claims of bad faith based on passive holding the refusal to sell the disputed domain name to it for a certain amount and the fact that the Respondent holds several domain names including dictionary words per se are not evidence of bad faith The

and reputation Fourthly passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name is evidence of bad faith in the circumstances of this case Fifth as indicated in paragraph 5.5 above the Panel has drawn adverse inferences from the failure of the Respondent

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

of content Respondent s passive holding of the at-issue domain name shows neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy Paragraph 4 c i nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy Paragraph 4 c iii See Michelin

put to any active use Such passive holding of domain names does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services under the Policy There is no evidence in the record that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names Respondent

a positive act by Ms Cavoto Holding passively a domain name can constitute bad faith and here the Disputed Domain Name being confusingly similar to the trademark JLL bad faith must be considered DCI S.A v Link Commercial Corporation WIPO Case No

if the Panel finds so-called passive holding in bad faith in line with the cases which have followed the reasoning first laid out in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The Panel so finds passive holding

further demonstrated by its passive holding of the disputed domain name and its awareness of Complainant s rights in the KING RANCH mark prior to registering the disputed domain name B Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this

the trademark of another Passive holding of a domain name containing a mark with a reputation can be bad faith registration and use See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows D2000-0003 WIPO Feb 18 2000 As such the Panel holds that

Philip Stein Holding Inc v Johan Fogelberg Claim Number FA1904001837686 PARTIES Complainant is Philip Stein Holding Inc Complainant represented by Eric J Shimanoff of Cowan Liebowitz & Latman P.C New York USA Respondent is Johan Fogelberg

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

the trademark of another Passive holding of a domain name containing a mark with a reputation can be bad faith registration and use See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows D2000-0003 WIPO Feb 18 2000 As such the Panel holds that