However even such more of a passive holding of the disputed domain names in itself is not capable of creating any rights of Respondent therein see i.e Pepperdine University v BDC Partners Inc WIPO Case No D2006-1003 Archipelago Holdings LLC v

submits that the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain names is evidence of its bad faith and in this respect relies on the principle from Telstra Corporation Ltd v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 B Respondent The

inicial configura o chamado passive holding A falta de uso do nome de domínio em disputa demonstra que o titular não está exercendo faculdades e atividades elementares do nome de domínio assim incidindo em descompasso com a função da

protection legislation Passive holding of a disputed domain name does not preclude the finding of bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings A Identical or Confusingly

the panel held that the passive holding of the domain name by the respondent amounts to the respondent acting in bad faith The present case is a clear case of passive holding as although the Respondent has the disputed domain name

However even such more of a passive holding of the disputed domain name in itself is not capable of creating any rights of Respondent therein see e.g Pepperdine University v BDC Partners Inc WIPO Case No D2006-1003 Archipelago Holdings LLC v

names at issue following the passive use reasoning of the decision in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Telstra See WIPO Overview 2.0 paragraph 3.2 These decisions typically concern a domain name based on a

gain the Respondents are passively holding the Disputed Domain Name The Respondents had the opportunity to demonstrate their rights or legitimate interests but did not do so In the absence of a Response from the Respondents the prima facie

registration amounting to passive holding given the Complainant s reputation the Respondents must have known of the Complainant and the Trade Mark at the time they registered the Disputed Domain Name the Respondents have provided no evidence of

under the Policy summons that passive holding of a domain name may constitute use in bad faith PRL USA Holdings Inc and Ralph Lauren Media LLC v Morrison and Associates WIPO Case No D2001-0255 B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the

This is considered to be passive holding of the domain names which does not avoid the finding of bad faith use notably in the present case in which Respondent is a former employee of Complainant In this sense the Panel recalls the consensus

that the Respondent s passive holding in this case constitutes use in bad faith As in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and Ladbroke Group Plc v Sonnoma International LDC WIPO Case No D2002-0131

contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith Rather a panel must examine all of the circumstances including for example whether Complainant has a well-known trademark and whether Respondent replies

contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith Rather a panel must examine all of the circumstances including for example whether Complainant has a well-known trademark and whether Respondent replies

such this is a clear case of passive holding which amounts to registration and use in bad faith In Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 the panel held that passive holding of a domain name containing a mark

name itself Panels have found passive holding together with other circumstances to equate to a lack of rights and legitimate interests See TMP Int l Inc v Baker Enters FA 204112 Nat Arb Forum Dec 6 2003 T he Panel concludes that Respondent failure

mark and is a clear case of passive holding which amounts to registration and use in bad faith In Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 the panel held that passive holding of a domain name containing a mark

mark and is a clear case of passive holding which amounts to registration and use in bad faith In Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 the panel held that passive holding of a domain name containing a mark

and related trademarks 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 s

is effectively engaged in passive holding of the disputed domain name within the terms originally established by Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The panel in Telstra noted that the question as to which