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

established that the mere passive holding of a domain name may in appropriate circumstances be evidence not only of bad faith registration but also of bad faith use See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003

faith under the doctrine of passive holding Factors that have been considered 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

the disputed domain name is passively held While passive holding is not conclusive that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests here the mark is an arbitrary term has a particular strong recognition in the market and its global presence

of the disputed domain name Passive holding of a disputed domain name may in appropriate circumstances be consistent with a finding of bad faith However panels have tended to make such findings in circumstances in which for example a complainant

the domain name constitutes a passive holding of the statefarmcasualty.org domain name Respondent's failure to actively use the at-issue domain name shows bad faith registration and use of the domain name pursuant to Policy � 4 a iii See Dermtek

use under the doctrine of passive holding As first considered in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include i the degree

Furthermore this is a case of passive holding which under the circumstances is an indication of bad faith use Lastly the Respondent used a privacy service B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and

the Respondent s non-use or passive holding of the Domain Name does not constitute bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use See e.g Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v David Weiss Weiss Ent WIPO Case No

WIPO Overview 3.0 considers passive holding 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 i the degree of

over the years and such a passive holding of the Domain Name in this case constitutes bad faith taking into consideration the overall context of the Respondent s behavior see Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No

faith under the doctrine of passive holding see WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 The Panel further notes that the Respondent has chosen to remain silent within the proceeding which is a further indication of bad faith In light of the above the Panel

faith under the doctrine of passive holding Lastly the Complainant stated that the Respondent appears to have used privacy service in bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings

DECISION Volvo Trademark Holding Aktiebolag v 杨智超 Zhichao Yang Case No D2020-3507 1 The Parties The Complainant is Volvo Trademark Holding Aktiebolag Sweden represented by Zacco Sweden AB Sweden The Respondent is 杨智超 Zhichao Yang

constitutes warehousing or passive use of the disputed domain name which is based on Complainant's AGILENT mark Complainant submits that such passive holding of the disputed domain name does not show a legitimate use or bona fide offering of

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.� 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 trademark owner Further passive holding of a disputed domain name incorporating a third-party well-known mark does not normally amount to a bona fide use It is well established that inaction or passive holding can in certain circumstances

possible that a r espondent s passive holding amounts to bad faith The Telstra decision states that paragraph 4 b recognizes that inaction e.g passive holding in relation to a domain name registration can in certain circumstances constitute a

domain name The Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain names The disputed domain names were registered or are being used in bad faith Given the high popularity of the Complainant and its SKYDANCE trademark the Complainant finds it