of great value Respondent has passively held this domain name for a number of years in bad faith Complainant makes other accusations of bad faith not relevant for purposes of this UDRP proceeding B Respondent Respondent has rights and legitimate

known by the domain name The passive holding of the domain name does not generate the legitimate interest in the domain name Factoring that the Respondent defaulted to assert defenses to the Complaint to demonstrate his rights or legitimate

in evaluating whether the passive holding of a domain name amounts to bad faith including i Whether the Complainant s trademark has a strong reputation that is widely known ii Whether the Respondent has provided evidence of any actual or

Complainant also cites the passive holding doctrine articulated in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 arguing that there is bad faith use as well as bad faith registration of the Domain Name despite the

that this is not a case of passive holding which in some extenuating circumstances can establish bad faith use even if the disputed domain name has not yet been used at all The Respondent states that in this case the email Registry only made

Currently the Respondent is passively holding the Domain Name making a similar bad faith use The Complainant is unaware of any evidence of actual or contemplated good faith use of the Domain Name by the Respondent The Domain Name is currently

DECISION Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA LLC v Domain Admin Case No DMX2014-0016 1 The Parties Petitioner is Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA LLC of St Louis Missouri United States of America USA represented by Harness Dickey & Pierce PLC USA

active use of a domain name passive holding does not prevent a finding of bad faith See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions Second Edition WIPO Overview 2.0 paragraph 3.2 Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows

that Respondent currently passively holds the disputed bfgoodrichtire.com domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy Paragraph4 a iii See DCI S.A v Link Commercial Corp D2000-1232 WIPO Dec 7 2000 concluding

website which constitutes passive holding kind of activity which may also in certain circumstances constitute evidence of bad faith use In this sense the Panel refers to consensus view of WIPO Overview 2.0 3.2 Can there be use in bad faith when

and trademark in a case of passive holding Previous UDRP panels have held that the passive holding of the domain name by a respondent may amount to acting in bad faith See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No

and trademark in a case of passive holding Previous UDRP panels have held that the passive holding of the domain name by the respondent may amount to the respondent acting in bad faith See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO

Complainant contends that the passive holding of the disputed domain name is evidence of the Respondent bad faith Although in some cases passive holding of a domain name may provide evidence of bad faith activity it is necessary in every case to

also points to Respondent s passive holding of the domain name as evidence of bad faith registration and use B Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding FINDINGS The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is

The Respondent is engaged in passive holding of seven of the disputed domain names namely amazonfirephone.info amazonfirephone.org amazonfirephone2.com amazonfirewatch.com amazonfirewear.com amazonsuppply.com and kindlepay.com 8 Two of the

active use of the domain name passive holding does not prevent a finding of bad faith See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions Second Edition WIPO Overview 2 0 paragraph 3 2 Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows

the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name demonstrates that it is being used in bad faith The Complainant contends that in most relevant UDRP decisions panels have agreed on the existence of bad faith and

to be found in cases of passive holding when there is an apparent lack of so-called active use e.g to resolve to a website of the domain name without any active attempt to sell or to contact the trademark holder is a basis for finding bad

itself is a member of Koç Holding Group Aygaz A.Ş was founded in 1961 and is the first and largest of the Koç Holding Group companies to operate in the LPG industry Koç Holding group itself is Turkey s largest industrial and services group

Nevertheless the inaction eg passive holding in relation to a domain name registration can in certain circumstances constitute a domain name being used in bad faith Because the Complainant s trademark has a strong reputation and the Respondent has