PANEL DECISION Alibaba Group Holding Limited v LiangKe Weng Jiangxi Domain Information Industry Co Ltd Case No D2021-1301 1 The Parties The Complainant is Alibaba Group Holding Limited Cayman Islands United Kingdom represented by ELLALAN China The

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 does not

¶¶ 4 c i & iii Further passive holding of a disputed domain name is generally not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use See Thermo Electron Corp v Xu FA 713851 Forum July 12 2006 finding that the

active use of the domain name passive holding does not prevent a finding of bad faith under certain circumstances as decided i.a in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Furthermore is should be noted that the

Complainant or a competitor Passive holding is also applicable The term testbusters is not a common or descriptive term but a trademark in which the Complainant has rights and an increasing reputation Such term is the only distinctive component

name and has therefore made a passive holding of it in bad faith Factors that previous panels have considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine as noted at section 3.3 of WIPO Overview 3.0 include i the degree of distinctiveness or

this Panel shares that the passive holding of a domain name with knowledge that the domain name infringes another party s trademark rights may in itself be regarded as evidence of bad faith registration and use see for example WIPO Case No

faith under the doctrine of passive holding In its determination the Panel considered the degree of distinctiveness and reputation of the Complainant s IQOS and HEETS marks as well as the Respondent s failure to respond in the face of the

have a legitimate interest Passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings A Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds

a possibility in any case The passive holding of a disputed domain name that incorporates the trademark of an unrelated party has been consistently held to amount to bad faith in particular where no legitimate use of the disputed domain name

and institutions currently holding billions of dollars worth of assets under advisement They are the owners of trademark registrations for ROCKEFELLER in more than 50 countries Exhibits J and K to the Amended Complaint amongst which are the

It is commonly referred to as passive holding Whilst it is true that the passive holding of a domain name may in appropriate circumstances be indicative of bad faith It will only be so indicative when all the circumstances of the Respondent's

used in bad faith under the passive holding doctrine B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings Notwithstanding the fact that no Response has been filed the Panel shall consider the issues

similar domain name simply by holding the domain name passively is not indicative of a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶¶ 4 c i nor of a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4 c iii See Activision Blizzard Inc /

domain names is similar to passive holding which in the circumstances of this proceeding evidences bad faith Based on the confusing similarity between the disputed domain names and Complainant s well-known trademark Respondent may have intended

to the last website which is passively held it is also well established 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 doctrine of passive holding see WIPO Overview 3.0

domain name in this case is passively held but for no conceivably lawful use Telstra supra While passive holding is not the deciding factor it combines with other cumulative proof to support Complainant s contention that respondent registered

panels have discussed the passive holding of a domain names e.g in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and found that the passive holding itself can constitute bad faith use The Panelist recalls that

is effectively engaged in passive holding of the disputed domain name within the terms originally established by Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The panel in Telstra noted that the question as to which

faith under the doctrine of passive holding Considering the high level of distinctiveness and global reputation of the Complainant s SANOFI trademark the Respondent s lack of any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name the