both constitute inactive holding of the domain See Compl at Attached Ex 8 Complainant asserts that such passive holding of the domain by Respondent demonstrates neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial

s use which consists of the passive holding of the Disputed Domain is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use and is not in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services Despite receiving notice of Complainant s rights via the

and that Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name Respondent did not acknowledge Complainant communications Such use under such circumstances constitutes registration and use in bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not

and that Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name Respondent did not acknowledge Complainant communications Such use under such circumstances constitutes registration and use in bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not

a parking page While a purely passive holding can still amount to bad faith in all the circumstances in this case the Respondent is taking advantage of the Complainant trademarks to redirect Internet users to sponsored links The Complainant

a Registrar parking page passive holding since its registration The Complainant finally notes that given the notoriety of its trademarks it seems impossible for the Respondent to use the domain names in good faith Indeed prior UDRP Panels

As a result the Respondent s passive holding or the current use of the Domain Name cannot be considered use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because the mere registration of a

disputed domain name but that passive holding could establish use in bad faith as well In the present case the conditions for such finding are present Complainant trademark is widely known Respondent did not participate in the proceeding and gave

with the domain name and that passive holding of a domain name permits an inference of registration and use in bad faith see also Mondich v Brown D2000-0004 WIPO Feb 16 2000 holding that the respondent s failure to develop its website in a two year

parking page This effective passive holding also constitutes use in bad faith Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The Panel finds that Respondent also has used the domain names in bad faith under paragraph 4

the Respondent engages in passive holding of the Domain Names which satisfies the situations clarified in the landmark case Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and constitutes bad faith The Respondent has

the disputed domain name is passively held by the Respondent and emphasizes that as determined by many UDRP decisions the passive holding of a domain name containing a well-known trademark also constitutes bad faith B Respondent The Respondent

to an inactive website The passive holding of a disputed domain name that incorporates the entirety of the well-known trademarks permits an inference that the Respondent is not acting in good faith Philip Morris USA Inc v Kat Doe / Whoisguard

that the Respondent has passively held the disputed domain name and is engaging in no activity Passive holding does not in appropriate circumstances like the current case prevent a finding of bad faith See Telstra Corporation Limited v

also states that the current passive holding can amount to a use in bad faith Thus Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name B Respondent Respondent claims that he has stopped using the disputed domain name as soon as

contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith The panel must examine all the circumstances of the case to determine whether the respondent is acting in bad faith Examples of what may be cumulative

found that there had been a passive holding in bad faith as explained in paragraph 3.2 of WIPO Overview 2.0 The Respondent criticizes the Complainant for leaving the disputed domain name unregistered for a year However the fact that for whatever

domain names followed by a passive holding of the disputed domain names and collecting click-through revenues constitute use in bad faith Taking into account in particular the combination in the disputed domain names of the well-known trademark

previous UDRP panels is that passive holding in itself does not preclude a finding of bad faith The panel must examine all the circumstances of the case to determine whether the respondent is acting in bad faith See WIPO Overview 2.0 paragraph 3.2

states that the Respondent passive holding of the disputed domain name incorporating the Complainant widely-known trademark is in bad faith The Complainant therefore contends that the disputed domain was registered and is being used by the