PANEL DECISION Alibaba Group Holding Limited v Wang Zhi Fa Case No DTM2021-0001 1 The Parties The Complainant is Alibaba Group Holding Limited Cayman Islands United Kingdom represented by ELLALAN China The Respondent is Wang Zhi Fa China 2 The

finds that the Respondent s passive holding of the Domain Name supports the finding of bad faith As numerous UDRP panels have held passive holding under the totality of circumstances of the case can constitute a bad faith use under the Policy See

in relation to the Passive Holding Doctrine 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 i the degree of

faith under the doctrine of passive holding See section 3.3 of WIPO Overview 3.0 Considering that the Panel has found that the Complainant s trademark is well known the Respondent has not responded to the Complaint or to the Complainant s

it Instead the Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name Lastly the Complainant suggests that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith The INSTAGRAM trademark is renowned and uniquely associated to

Policy under the doctrine of passive holding The Complainant notes in this regard that the disputed domain names comprise the Complainant s distinctive and globally recognizable G4S trademark so the Respondent must been aware of the Complainant s

faith under the Policy The passive holding of the disputed domain name in the absence of any acceptable explanation of its intended use or obstacles to using it qualifies as use in bad faith under the Policy All the more so if the Respondent s

the trade mark 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 cited in Wahl Clipper

their affiliates and that ii passive holding of the since turned inactive disputed domain name without permission from the Complainants is not in itself capable of creating any rights for the Respondent therein The Complainants finally contend

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 See section 3.3 WIPO Overview 3.0 In light of the above taking into consideration all cumulative circumstances of this case on the balance of probabilities the Panel concludes that the Complainant has

faith under the doctrine of passive holding See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 In this context it can be said that the passive holding of the disputed domain names is further evidence of bad faith

faith under the doctrine of passive holding Looking at section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions Third Edition WIPO Overview 3.0 all of the relevant factors in applying the passive holding doctrine are

faith under the doctrine of passive holding The Panel has reviewed all elements of this case and attributes particular relevance to the commercial and plagiarized contents of the website previously linked to the disputed domain name to the fact

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

the trade mark 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

faith under the doctrine of passive holding See section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 Finally the Respondent has chosen not to respond to the Complainant s allegations According to the panel s decision in The Argento Wine Company Limited v Argento

PANEL DECISION VKR Holding A/S v Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / lion heart Case No D2022-0005 1 The Parties The Complainant is VKR Holding A/S Denmark represented by CSC Digital Brand Services Group AB Sweden The

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 Броцман Vitalii Brocman WIPO Case

has demonstrated bad faith by passive holding of the disputed domain name Such a finding is consistent with previous UDRP decisions such as Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 See also WIPO Overview 3.0