use could be considered as passive holding of this domain name which is also an evidence of bad faith use The Complainant concludes that for all these reasons the Respondent has engaged in bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain

The Complainant says that the passive holding by the Respondent of the disputed domain name is also indicative of bad faith The Complainant presumes that the Respondent is obtaining some financial gain for this holding and provides evidence of a

for no active purpose simply passively holding the domain name as it displays a notice that the polydeck.com domain name is for sale Panels have found that the passive holding of a website without any active use is evidence of a lack of rights and

passive holding 争议域名不会� �碍� 家组根据� 有的证据认定被投诉人恶意注册�'�使� �争议域名� �参见WIPO Overview 2.0，第3.2段；Telstra Corporation Limited 诉 Nuclear

that the Respondent s present passive holding of the disputed domain name meets the requirement of paragraph 4 a iii that the domain name is being used in bad faith by the Respondent based on the following circumstances i the Complainant s

that the Respondent s present passive holding of the disputed domain name also meets the requirement of paragraph 4 a iii that the domain name is being used in bad faith by the Respondent based on the following circumstances i the Complainant s

the Respondent s present passive holding of the disputed domain name does not affect the ground of the Complaint B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings Paragraph 15 a of the Rules

now currently inactive such passive holding could still constitute an act of bad faith The Complainant s well-known registered and unregistered trademarks and the impossibility of conceiving a good faith use of the disputed domain name are

now currently inactive such passive holding could still constitute an act of bad faith The Complainant s well-known registered and unregistered trademarks and the impossibility of conceiving a good faith use of the disputed domain name are

now currently inactive such passive holding could still constitute an act of bad faith The Complainant concludes that its well-known registered and unregistered trademarks and the impossibility of conceiving a good faith use of the disputed

now currently inactive such passive holding could still constitute an act of bad faith The Complainant concludes that its well-known registered and unregistered trademarks and the impossibility of conceiving a good faith use of the disputed

the Respondent is currently passively holding the disputed domain name The question that then arises is what circumstances of inaction passive holding other than those identified in paragraphs 4 b i ii and iii can constitute a domain name being

Forum Apr 25 2007 â ��the passive holding of a domain name that is identical to Complainantâ � �s mark is not a bona fide offering of goods or services nor is it a legitimate noncommercial or fair useâ �￾ 28 As a result Respondent clearly

WIPO Case No D2000-0003 passive holding of domain names registered in bad faith can in certain circumstances constitute bad faith use In view of the Panel s findings in relation to the Domain Names cat-tmall.com and cat-footwear.com the Panel

ofiNSUREBUYS.COM 2.� � Passive Use of Domain Names is in Bad Faith As discussed above Respondent � is passively using the disputed domain name � Respondent purposefully directed the INSUREBUYS.COM domain to a holding page containing filler

Complainant submits that such passive holding could still qualify as an act of bad faith The Respondent s failure to respond to the Complainant s cease and desist letter requesting voluntary transfer of the disputed domain name is further

part of the Respondent While passive holding in itself is not evidence of bad faith Indofil Chemicals Company v Amar Vakil WIPO Case No D2006-0792 passive holding under certain circumstances may support an inference of bad faith Telstra

that the Respondent s passive holding of inventa.com amounts to bad faith The Complainants also stress that the disputed domain name is of essential significance to the Complainants for example for purposes of communication between the

held for example that the passive holding of an inactive website could constitute bad faith There is no suggestion that the Respondent had any intention of making any legitimate use of the disputed domain name or that there is any conceivable

faith use arising from just passive holding may ordinarily require an interval of more than just a few months to elapse during which a respondent merely holds a domain name and does not use it to resolve to an operational website Here the passive