Decathlon v Nexperian Holding Limited / Hu Yan Kai Case No D2017-2312 1 The Parties The Complainant is Decathlon of Villeneuve d Ascq France represented by AARPI Scan Avocats France The Respondent is Nexperian Holding Limited of Hangzhou

that the domain name is passively held Complainant s DELL marks were registered and had become famous long before Respondent registered its business entity with the state of Delaware Respondent s passive holding of the domain name for over 6

since as it submits such passive holding of a domain name is equal to active use See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and Ladbroke Group Pic v Sonoma International LDC WIPO Case No D2002-0131 The

nach der Doktrin des passiven Haltens doctrine of passive holding nicht entgegen Dabei gilt es unter anderem zu berücksichtigen ob der Beschwerdegegner den Beweis einer gutgläubigen Benutzung erbracht hat bzw ob eine zukünftige

faith under the doctrine of passive holding � In the circumstances and in the absence of a plausible reply from the Respondent the Panel considers that the fact that the disputed domain name does not resolve to an actual website would not prevent

down and there is continued passive holding of the Domain Names does not undermine the Panel �s finding that the Domain Names were registered and are being used in bad faith In light of the evidence of the Complainant �s prior rights in the

the Examiner notes that passive holding or non-use of a domain name is evidence of a lack of legitimate rights in the domain name NAF Case FA-097328 NAF Case FA-96248 NAF FA 1405001559476 To summarize the Examiner find that the Complainant

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

active website 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

acts of acquisition Passive holding of the disputed domain names can amount to use in bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant �s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings 6.1 Language of the Proceeding Paragraph

of goods and services The passive holding of the Disputed Domain Names mououtletonline.com mouonlinesale.com and mou-eskimo.com is not a legitimate use The Respondent is not nor has ever been a licensee of the Complainant and the websites

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 a the degree of distinctiveness or

contact the trade mark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith see Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and HUGO BOSS Trade Mark Management GmbH & Co KG HUGO BOSS AG v Dzianis

e mail scams Typosquatting passive holding and the provision of false WHOIS information are also indications that Respondent has registered the Domain Name and used it in bad faith B Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this

found that the concept of passive holding may apply even in the event of sporadic use or of the mere parking by a third party of a domain name See as an example WIPO Overview 2.0 paragraph 3.2 In the WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Telstra Corporation

certain circumstances for a passive holding by the Respondent to amount to the disputed domain name being used in bad faith WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows In the present case there does not appear to be

a blank website constitutes passive holding in bad faith Through widespread use and substantial advertising/promotional efforts the Complainant �s mark is well known and its use as a domain name indicates that the Respondent was aware of the

find that this case is one of passive holding where it is not possible to identify a situation where use would realistically be in good faith see WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 para 3.2 including its summary of the Telstra line of cases WIPO AMC

previous UDRP panels is that passive holding in itself does not preclude a finding of bad faith Finally the Respondent has failed to respond to the Complaint and provide any evidence to establish its rights or legitimate interests in these

the contrary there has been passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name The Respondent has not been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name so that route is not available to the Respondent The Panel accordingly finds that the Respondent has no