registration followed by the passive holding of a domain name when there is no way in which it could be used legitimately can amount to use in bad faith Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The Complainant

under certain circumstances passive holding of a disputed domain name may evidence bad faith Complainant contends that Respondent passive holding of the disputed domain name in this proceeding evidences bad faith because a Respondent has failed

Under some circumstances such passive holding of a domain name can establish a lack of rights or legitimate interests As set forth in the landmark case Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 the following

is not used actively i.e is passively held As stated in several prior decisions the passive holding of a domain name does not prevent the finding of bad faith use See amongst others the leading case Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear

4 a i See Janus International Holding Co v Scott Rademacher WIPO Case No D2002-0201 finding that the registration of a mark is prima facie evidence of validity which creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently distinctive The

is currently inactive such passive holding could still constitute an act of bad faith and any realistic use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent would constitute passing off and/or trademark infringement B Respondent The Respondent did

decisions confirm that the passive holding of a domain name including another party widely known trademark is evidence of bad faith registration and use See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 See also the

regarding the consensus on passive domain name holding With comparative reference to the circumstances set out in paragraph 4 b of the UDRP deemed to establish bad faith registration and use panels have found that the apparent lack of so-called

the disputed domain name the passive holding of the disputed domain name amounts to bad faith registration and use B Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant contentions 6 Discussion and Findings Under paragraph 4 a of the Policy to

bad faith registration and passive holding under Policy Paragraph 4 a iii Respondent makes no contentions relative to Policy Paragraph 4 a iii The Panel finds that Respondent registered and used by passively holding the disputed domain name in

active website i.e has been passively held As established in a number of prior cases the concept of bad faith use in paragraph 4 b of the Policy includes not only positive action but also passive holding see the landmark case Telstra Corporation

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 of WIPO Panel

The Domain Name points to a holding page indicating that a web site is coming soon The fact that a domain name is held passively does not prejudge a legitimate use of that domain rather such passive holding is deemed a bad faith indicator The

domain names The Respondent passive holding of the disputed domain names is itself bad faith use B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainants contentions 6 Discussion and Findings A Language of the Proceeding Paragraph 11 of the

that this is a case of passive holding in bad faith and therefore use in bad faith The assertions made in the Response are unsubstantiated and unconvincing Further they suggest that the domain names may have been for sale The Examiner finds

that this is a case of passive holding in bad faith and therefore use in bad faith The Examiner finds clear and convincing evidence that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith Accordingly URS Procedure 1.2.6.3

that this is a case of passive holding in bad faith and therefore use in bad faith The Examiner finds clear and convincing evidence that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith Accordingly URS Procedure 1.2.6.3

hands of the Respondent Such passive holding following fraudulent activities still constitutes an act of bad faith and any future use of the Domain Name by the Respondent would have to be assumed to constitute passing off and/or trademark

While the Respondent is passively holding the Domain Names the Panel can envision no use of the Domain Names that would amount to bona fide offering of goods or services The registration of several Domain Names that are confusingly similar to

domain name resolves to a passive holding site which can be evidence of bad faith under the Policy in and of itself The Complainant states that if the Respondent were to argue that it was unaware of the Complainant s rights had the Respondent