faith under the doctrine of passive holding It further states 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

the Policy the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name for 13 years from the date of its purchase by the Respondent also suggests the Complainant had reasonable prima facie grounds for establishing the second limb as well as 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

by previous authorities that passive holding can constitute a factor in establishing bad faith registration and use The fact that the disputed domain name incorporates the trade mark ARCELORMITTAL in its entirety together with the term grupo

Schneider Electric Japan Holdings Ltd v 刘小平 Liu Xiao Ping 广州正凌自动化科技有限公司 Guang Zhou Zheng Ling Zi Dong Hua Ke Ji You Xian Gong Si Case No D2021-1801 1 The Parties The Complainant is Schneider Electric Japan

domain names Respondents by passively holding the disputed domain names is not engaging in legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names Under the third element Complainant states that the FACEBOOK mark is highly distinctive

for the doctrine of passive holding arguing that there is no plausible reason for registering and holding the Domain Name other than in contemplation of exploiting the Complainant s trademark The Complainant finds further evidence of bad

name links to no website This passive holding of the disputed domain name containing a well-known trademark indicates that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name Summarised there is no evidence for a use of

bank Renaissance Financial Holdings Limited and brokerage Renaissance Broker Limited the Complainants The First Complainant is Renaissance Financial Holdings Ltd trading as RENAISSANCE CAPITAL This is the parent and holding company of the Group

would still succeed under the passive holding doctrine The Complainant has demonstrated to the Panel s satisfaction that the factors commonly viewed as establishing impermissible passive holding of a domain name are present here Specifically these

Panels have found that such passive holding of a domain name redirecting consumers to a parking page displaying commercial links to other websites in the same field of activity as that of Complainant shows that Respondent does not use the domain

parking page amounting to passive holding The Panel agrees that the default parking page set up on the disputed domain name does not prove any intention or effort to use the disputed domain name and can in this case be considered as passive

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 Complainant refers to the passive holding doctrine with regard to the non-use of the Domain Name alstomintl.com citing Novo Nordisk A/S v CDMS Invest WIPO Case No D2012-0676 where the respondent initially set up a website to exploit the

and that the Respondent's passive holding of the disputed domain names is evidence of bad faith RESPONDENT No administratively compliant Response has been filed Rights The Complainant has to the satisfaction of the Panel shown that the disputed

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

relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant s mark ii the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good

trademark The Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith The disputed domain name causes a risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant s A101 trademark B Respondent The Respondent did

even in cases of so-called passive holding Instagram LLC v Registration Private Domains By Proxy LLC / asd sdasadasdds WIPO Case No D2021-1451 In the circumstances of this case the Panel finds that such passive holding amounts to bad faith On

even in cases of so-called passive holding as found in the landmark UDRP decision Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 In the circumstances of this case the Panel finds that such passive holding amounts to