used by the Respondent passive holding is no bar to a finding of bad faith on the Respondent s part In accordance with the consensus view of UDRP panels the factors indicated and the absence of any substantive Response on the part of the

following reasons...'Passive holding of a web site does not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate non-commercial or fair use The Respondent is using avocentechnology.com to redirect Internet users to a web site

The Respondent is only passively using the disputed domain name as the disputed domain name refers to a page mentioning an error message In certain circumstances the passive holding of a domain name can amount to bad faith registration and

that the respondent s passive holding of the domain name satisfied the requirement of paragraph 4 a iii that the domain name was being used in bad faith by the respondent because 1 the complainant s trademark had a strong reputation and was

active webpage constituting passive holding or were associated with a pay-per-click PPC parking page and/or indicating the domain name was for sale 2 passive holding may evidence bad faith 3 lack of a bona fide offering of goods or services by

to an active website such passive holding can be considered as a use in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows supra Jupiters Limited v Aaron Hall WIPO Case No

date in cases of long time passive holding of the disputed domain names The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name The Respondent s registration of the disputed domain name occurred after the Complainant

the Policy The Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain names is not an obstacle to a finding of bad faith registration and use This is a position that has been well established in many earlier UDRP panel decisions The Panel finds that

that the name has been passively held at all relevant times and the Domain Name will continue to be passively held until the Domain Name registration period expires None of those submission are new or rather given that this Panel is not

The Complainant argues that passive holding of the Domain Name does not preclude finding of bad faith where like here the trademark has a strong reputation and is widely known and where the Respondent provided no evidence of good faith use of the

with the Complainant Whether passive holding of a domain name could amount to bad faith use was considered in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmellows WIPO D2000-0003 In that case it was found that a passive holding could amount to the

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

s business Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name disrupts Complainant s business by diverting Internet users to its site Respondent sought to imitate EDX by using Complainant s mark and incorporating Complainant s design

is perceived as an act of passive holding which prevents Complainant from registering the domain name under his rightfully owned trademark This passive holding prevents the trademarks owner from using the rights conferred by his marks As the

domain name However such passive holding of the website does not prevent the Panel from finding registration and use in bad faith The Panel further notes that Respondent undeveloped use of the website at the disputed domain name which

the website is inactive such passive holding constitutes an act of bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions and is therefore in default 6 Discussion and Findings A Identical or Confusingly Similar The

In certain circumstances the passive holding of a domain name may be found to amount to bad faith see e.g Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 These circumstances include where the subject mark has a strong

Complainants the Respondent s passive holding of the Domain Names and the Respondent s history of proceedings under the Policy B Respondent The Respondent has failed to respond to the Complaint within the required deadline and was accordingly

The Respondent s current passive holding of the disputed domain name does not establish rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name The Respondent has not responded to the Complaint or provided any reasonable explanation for the

also alleges that the passive holding of a domain name amounts to bad faith when it is difficult to imagine any plausible future active use of the domain name by the Respondent that would be legitimate and not infringing the Complainant