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

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

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

c iii à Respondent is likely holding the disputed domain name for improper passive use as there are no prices provided for the items depicted Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith i Respondent is using the

¬ ¢s bald assertion that passive holding of a domain name is evidence of bad faith must be qualified by the context in which former UDRP cases have made such a finding specifically instances where there was no likely good faith use to which

that this constitutes passive holding of a domain name B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings Pursuant to paragraph 4 a of the Policy the Complainant must prove each of the

that the Respondentâ ¬ ¢s passive holding amounts to acting in bad faith⠬￾ Analogous activities by cyber-squatters operating in other industries were considered to rise to the level of à â ¬Åopportunistic bad faith.⠬￾ See Singapore

with trademark holders e Passively holding or parking a domain name without actually using the disputed domain name is not a bona fide offering of goods or services and actually evidences both a lack of a legitimate right or interest in the

argues that Respondent s passive holding of the jaclynsmith.org domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use The Panel notes that the disputed domain name resolves to a website that contains hyperlinks to competing businesses and

and restaurant Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name is evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name Respondent produced no evidence that it is commonly known by the disputed domain name

recognized that such passive holding of a domain is common and should not be held against a respondent where as is the case here respondent has provided business reasons consistent with such a holding period See Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd

that such use constitutes a passive holding of the domain name The Panel finds that Respondent s parked webpage is further evidence that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the moneymartpaydayloans.com domain name because passive

D2003-0696 WIPO Oct 28 2003 holding pepsiadventure.net pepsitennis.com and others confusingly similar to the Domain Name incorporates the famous GOOGLE Mark in its entirety and is confusingly similar to the GOOGLE Mark A domain name registrant

its products Respondent s passive holding of the cosm.net domain name is in bad faith B Respondent Respondent LogMeIn Inc was founded in 2003 and provides solutions pertaining to remote control file sharing system management data backup

for 1500.00 and had a passive offer to sell the disputed domain name through public auction for 4500.00 The Panel notes that Respondent admits to offering the disputed domain name for sale in the Other Correspondence submitted Based upon

GoDaddy.com parking pages A passive holding of a domain name is evidence that Respondent has not made a bona fide offering of goods and services under Policy Paragraph4 c ii or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy Paragraph4 c iv

have frequently held that passive holding of a domain name can be considered bad faith use under the Policy if other indications of bad faith are present Quinault Indian Nation v RDA Management Inc WIPO Case No D2001-1406 see also Tulalip

concluding that Respondent s passive holding of the domain name satisfies the requirement of Paragraph4 a iii of the Policy see also Clerical Med Inv Group Ltd v Clericalmedical.com D2000-1228 WIPO Nov 28 2000 finding that merely holding an

Paragraph 4 a iii 14 The passive holding of the menopursideeffects.com bravellesideeffects.com and repronexsideeffects.com domain names in sum with Respondent s registration of multiple domain names incorporating Complainant s trademarks

any active content This passive holding of the disputed domain name is also evidence of bad faith registration and use of the domain name See for example Am Broad Cos Inc v Sech FA 893427 Nat Arb Forum Feb 28 2007 concluding that a respondent