the principle of so-called passive holding first expressed in the case of Telstra Corp Ltd v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000 ‘0003 and applied to this case for the same reasons given then namely that it is not possible to conceive of any

recognises that inaction e.g passive holding in relation to a domain name registration can in certain circumstances constitute a domain name being used in bad faith Passive holding is explicitly alleged by the Complainant and has also been closely

the principle of so-called passive holding first expounded in Telstra Corp Ltd v Nuclear Marshmallows Case No D2000-0003 For these reasons Panel finds that Complainant has failed to establish the third and final aspect of the Policy DECISION

an active website constitutes passive holding in bad faith because the Domain Name incorporates Complainant s Marks and there is no conceivable use of the Domain Name for a website by Respondent that would be legitimate See Indymac Bank v Ebeyer

domain name and now passively holds the disputed domain name Passive holding of a confusingly similar domain name is not a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the

Respondent s current passive use does not eliminate his possible rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name Respondent registered the domain name in order to establish a mobile Internet service website and not to sell it to

Complainant submits that the passive holding of a near identical domain name is itself enough to show use in bad faith B Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding FINDINGS The factual findings pertinent to the decision

contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith See Jupiters Ltd v Hall D2000-0574 WIPO Oct 8 2000 jupiterscasino.com inter alia Transfer Finding that passive holding of a domain name which reproduces a

this website has long been passive without any legitimate use Web pages from this archive dated April 29 2005 and February 28 2007 show a picture of a cartoon rabbit and carrot without any other wording or context This passive use of a website

4 b iv Respondent s passive holding of the einsuranceagent.biz einsurancebiz.biz esuranceagency.biz esuranceagency.net esuranceagency.org and esuranceman.biz domain names is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy

domain names is evidence of passive holding that supports findings of Respondent s bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain names under Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See Disney Enters Inc v Meyers FA 697818 Nat Arb Forum June 26 2006

have previously held that the passive holding of a disputed domain name is evidence of a lack of rights and legitimate interests See George Weston Bakeries Inc v McBroom FA 933276 Nat Arb Forum Apr 25 2007 finding that the respondent had no rights

trademark Respondent is passively holding the domain name in that the domain name does not resolve to an active website Respondent has not been commonly known by the michelinmarketing.com domain name Respondent s use of the disputed domain

bad faith on the basis of passive holding should be found a The Respondent has provided a plausible explanation of the reason he registered the Domain Name Passive holding should only result in a finding of bad faith if the panel considers that

the question is whether the passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name can be considered registration and use in bad faith taking into account all the circumstances of the present case In Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO

which is a parking page and passive holding is not bona fide offering of goods or services Complainant submits that Respondent has registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith as Respondent no doubt had knowledge of the well-known

active could be qualified as passive holding together with the other circumstances of the case as the reputation of the Complainant s trademark and the failure of the Respondent to provide a Response in this case in agreement with the consensus

PANEL DECISION O2 Holdings Limited v Total Security Vision Case No D2012-1870 1 The Parties The Complainant is O2 Holdings Limited of Slough Berkshire United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland represented by Ipulse IP Ltd

fees.à The Respondentâ ¬ ¢s passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes evidence of bad faith it is improbable that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainantâ ¬ ¢s trademarks at the time of registration Moreover the Respondentâ

The website here is akin to a passive holding of the disputed domain name but with an open solicitation to sell it The Panel concludes that the Respondent knowingly selected the Complainant s mark AIDA which is used for the Complainant s cruise