notes that the Respondent is passively holding the Domain Names as they are merely parked by the Registrar The passive holding of the Domain Names can constitute bad faith use especially when combined with other factors such as the Respondent

name appears currently to be passively held The passive holding of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith use indeed the cases are legion where passive holding has been found to support a finding of the requisite bad faith See e.g

the absence of active use i.e passive holding In addition here Respondent owner-in-fact i.e Karl Brough offered to sell the disputed domain name to Complainant prior to transferring it to Respondent i.e my limited domain Complainant requests that

disputed domain name is only passively held does not preclude a finding of use in bad faith As set out in paragraph 3.2 of the WIPO Overview 2.0 states in part in relation to passive holding The panel must examine all the circumstances of the case

The question remains Can passive holding of a disputed domain name be seen as bad faith use As shown by prior UDRP panel decisions the apparent lack of so-called active use e.g to resolve to a website of the domain name without any active

has not been the subject of passive holding Archive.org shows that at least since July 17 2008 the Disputed Domain Name has directed to a site displaying the Respondent name trade mark and telephone number in the manner described in paragraph 5

disputa configura o chamado passive holding Essa inatividade somada ao fato de não ter o Reclamado justificado tal atitude em conjunto com os demais elementos do presente caso são suficientes para que se conclua que o Reclamado está agindo com

names refer to are simply passive holding pages but the Complainant cannot think of any possible right or legitimate interest the Respondent has in passively holding the disputed domain names which incorporate the Complainant s distinctive mark

is used in good faith Indeed passive holding does not preclude a finding of bad faith Previous UDRP panels have already considered that passive holding of a disputed domain name can satisfy the requirements of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy and

in a situation involving a passive holding of the domain name registration Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 In Telstra the Panel considered the specific circumstances of the case including the following

in considering whether passive holding satisfies the requirements of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy In the absence of any evidence as to why the Respondent s registration and passive holding of a domain name corresponding to the Complainant

domain name etass.com The passive holding of the disputed domain names itartass.net and business-tass.com cannot give rise to any rights or legitimate interests in those disputed domain names There has been no evidence adduced to show that the

long been established that passive holding of a disputed domain name in such circumstances constitutes use in bad faith Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 If the ERROR 403 FORBIDDEN page to which the

UDRP decisions inactivity or passive holding can in specific cases be regarded as use in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy The fact that the domain name was at some stage used actively to direct to a website unrelated

established that so-called passive holding can satisfy this requirement Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The Panel more readily infers use in bad faith in this case given the use the Respondent has in

trademark even inaction or passive holding in relation to a disputed domain name incorporating the trademark constitutes use in bad faith Given the fame attached to the Complainant s trademark it appears impossible to contemplate any use of the

for the re-registration and passive holding of the Domain Name the Panel finds that the Respondent present lack of use of the Domain Name amounts to the passive holding of the Domain Name in bad faith The Panel while noting that the Policy only

sell the disputed domain name passive holding does not prevent a finding of bad faith Having regard to all the circumstances of the case the Panel concludes that the Respondent is acting in bad faith The Panel finds that the Respondent registration

found that inactive use or passive holding of the disputed domain names by a respondent permits the inference that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain names see also Thermo Electron Corp v Xu FA 713851 NAF Jul 12

is an example where so called passive holding of a domain name has been held to constitute use within the meaning of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy According to the consensus view with comparative reference to the circumstances set out in