to demonstrate bad faith Passive holding alone is not evidence of bad faith There is nothing wrong with registering a generic domain name and holding it When passive holding has been found to evidence bad faith it has been in cases where a

the question of whether the passive holding of a domain name could constitute bad faith Paragraph 3.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions Second Edition WIPO Overview 2.0 states that panels have found that the

regard the Panel notes that passive holding does not preclude a finding of bad faith see e.g KOC Holding A.S v VistaPrint Technologies Ltd supra Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Finally according to

domain name followed by a passive holding and the lack of a legitimate use of the disputed domain name suffices to constitute bad faith use B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings The

to an index page and this 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 Noting the fact that the Respondent has not filed a

the Complainant argues that passive holding of the disputed domain name providing false contact details trying to conceal the registrant identity and not replying the Complainant communications are all indicative of the Respondent bad faith The

also is well established that passive holding of a domain name can constitute use in bad faith under the totality of the circumstances See e.g Telstra Corporation Ltd v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The Panel finds that the

no content at times but the passive holding of the disputed domain name also amounts to bad faith activity because the Complainant trademark is widely known and there can be no plausible actual or contemplated legitimate use of the disputed

the blog site and is in fact passively holding the disputed domain name and iv Respondent is using the disputed domain name to interfere with Complainant customers by diverting them to Respondent website Accordingly Complainant submits that

the Complainant argues that passive holding of the disputed domain name trying to conceal the registrant identity and not replying the Complainant communications are all indicative of the Respondent bad faith The Complainant requests for the

Respondent registered and passively held the disputed domain name in bad faith under a Policy Paragraph 4 a iii evaluation Finally Panels agree that passive holding supports findings of bad faith under Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See Disney Enters

FA 95095 Forum July 31 2000 holding that the respondent s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true see also Talk City Inc v Robertson D2000-0009 WIPO Feb 29 2000 In the

domain name Respondent s passive holding of the domain name incorporating the famous CARGILL mark is also evidence of bad faith under Policy Paragraph 4 a iii Additionally Respondent is using the disputed domain name in connection with

marks Second Respondent s passive holding of the domain name is evidence of bad faith Finally Respondent surely had actual notice of Complainant s DELL mark when it registered the nearly identical dell.store domain name B Respondent Respondent

even in cases of so-called passive holding as found in the landmark 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 bad

that the Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name Passive holding has been accepted as a bad faith indicator in a number of UDRP cases See inter alia Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003

on its TELSTRA mark The passive holding of a domain name can amount to bad faith registration and use as in this case where it is difficult to imagine any plausible future active use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent that would be

name can be contemplated the passive holding of the disputed domain name has to be considered as amounting to a use in bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant contentions 6 Discussion and Findings Paragraph 15 a of

registration followed by a passive holding of the domain name when there is no plausible actual or contemplated active use of the domain name that would legitimate has been found to be an use in bad faith The Panel then further finds that the

registration followed by a passive holding of the domain name when there is no plausible actual or contemplated active use of the domain name that would legitimate has been found to be an use in bad faith The Panel then further finds that the