UDRP decisions inactivity or passive holding can be regarded as use in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy Moreover given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark and reputation and the absence of any other

a page under construction Passive holding of a website does not prevent the Panel from finding registration and use in bad faith The Panel notes that the undeveloped use of such website at the Domain Names which incorporate Complainant well

Domain Name from active to passive the Respondent is no longer entitled to hold the Disputed Domain Name under the auDA Eligibility Rules because it no longer has a close and substantial connection with the Disputed Domain Name and the

legitimate use of it but its holding has prevented the Complainant from holding or using it The disputed domain name is not used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services and had been under construction until 2004 when it

is often referred to as passive holding In the Panel view passive holding absent other conduct does not prevent a finding of bad faith registration and use see Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The

some panels have applied the passive holding concept to mere parking by a third-party It is well established that the mere passive holding of a domain name may in appropriate circumstances be evidence not only of bad faith registration but also of

also be found by inaction or passive holding To conclude the Complainant contends that bad faith can be deduced by the fact that the BRADESCO mark is the major component of the disputed domain name and that it would be almost impossible for

under the Policy that the passive holding of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith if that is what is indicated by the overall circumstances of the case In all the circumstances of this case the Panel is unable to discern any

website which constitutes passive holding which may also in certain circumstances constitute evidence of bad faith use In this sense the Panel refers to consensus view of WIPO UDRP panels regarding cases involving passive holding found in the

have found that a registrant passive holding of a disputed domain name constitutes evidence of use in bad faith See Jones Apparel Group Inc v Robin Sousa WIPO Case No D2001-1308 Noting that in cases where non-use was coupled with a complainant

the Panel has no difficulty holding that the Other Domain Names constitute passive holding by the First Respondent in bad faith UDRP panels have found the passive holding concept to be applicable in the non-active use of domain names for

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

in bad faith followed by a 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 The Complainant relies upon two earlier decisions Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear

there is also no basis for holding that the Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names concerned Passive holding with some potential future use arguably here the deployment of further imitation websites by the

at hand the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name still constitutes an act of bad faith as any realistic use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent would constitute passing off and/or trademark infringement citing The

dans les cas de détention passive de noms de domaine litigieux dite encore passive holding Dans tous les cas la Commission administrative ne considère pas comme seule déterminante la notoriété de la marque du Requérant pour démontrer la

is currently inactive Such passive holding does not preclude a finding of bad faith Cleveland Browns Football Company LLC v Andrea Denise Dinoia WIPO Case No D2011-0421 Under the circumstances of this case the Respondent s current passive

also be given by inaction or passive holding The Complainant affirms that the trademark BRADESCO is so widely used and known by the public that it would be almost impossible for someone to claim having registered said mark as a domain name had it

also resolved to a holding page on or before the Complaint Based on the circumstances the Panel is of the view that the passive holding of the Disputed Domain Names by the Respondent with the Disputed Domain Names merely resolving to

the disputed domain name is passively held the Panel agrees with previous UDRP panels who applied the passive holding concept to mere parking by a third party as in this case 6.10 It is not necessary to address Complainant s case under paragraph