of other websites This passive holding prevents the trademark owner from using the rights conferred by his marks The domain name is registered and being used in bad faith because the purpose of the registration of the disputed domain name

disputed domain name However passive holding of a website is not a bona fide offering of goods or services and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use See Hewlett-Packard Co v Shemesh FA 434145 Nat Arb Forum Apr 20 2005 The Panel finds

be found error page Such passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes evidence of bad faith B Respondent In its Response Respondent contends as follows Respondent s doteasyhost.com domain name is not identical to Complainant s

is currently not available passive holding of domain names is not use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services and is not a noncommercial use or fair use pursuant to the Policy the only purpose of Respondent s disputed

it appears that Respondent is passively holding the Domain Names Passive holding of a domain name is not necessarily an illustration of a lack of rights or legitimate interests However in the present situation given the assertions made by

mean anything ii Inactive or passive holding of a disputed domain name may in certain circumstances amount to bad faith but it does not automatically give rise to such finding as such This Panel shares the broad consensus of previous WIPO UDRP

it is established that the passive holding of a domain name that incorporates a well-known trademark may also constitute the concept of a domain name being used in bad faith See Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel v Philippe Marie WIPO

that the registration and passive holding of a Domain Name which has no other legitimate use and clearly references the Complainant trademark constitutes registration and use in bad faith The Panel therefore finds that the Domain Name has been

infers that the Respondent s passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name amounts to bad faith registration and use for the purposes of the third element of the Policy In the circumstances this decision is consistent with the approach taken by

finding that merely holding an infringing domain name without active use can constitute use in bad faith see also Intel Corporation v The Pentium Group WIPO Case No D2009-0273 It has long been generally held in UDRP decisions that the

possible that a r espondent s passive holding amounts to bad faith Telstra supra stating that paragraph 4 b recognizes that inaction e.g passive holding in relation to a domain name registration can in certain circumstances constitute a domain name

finally states that the passive holding of the disputed domain name is to be considered as evidence of bad faith and that the disputed domain name has been registered in order to prevent the Complainant from reflecting the SFR Marks in a

that the Respondent s passive holding and maintenance of the disputed domain name despite the fact that the business conducted under the Futuris Networks name has not been active since approximately 2004 comprises evidence of bad faith as

use can be found in cases of passive holding when the circumstances warrant In this matter the cumulative circumstances are that the Complainant has a well-known trademark obviously known to Respondent and the Disputed Domain Name relates to

present case the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name is equivalent to using the domain name in bad faith See Telstra Corporation Limited vs Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The Panel finds that the disputed domain

case in that it involved a passive holding of the disputed domain name The panel in that case held that there was no evidence that the respondent attempted to sell the disputed domain name to the complainant or to a competitor of the complainant

Respondent s ownership in and passive holding of thousands of domain names does not constitute preparations to make good faith use of the disputed domain name Domain names used as parking pages with pay-per-click advertisements have been found in

argues that the parking or passively holding domain names in parked landing pages without legitimate usage or for pay-per-click fees is considered bad faith B Respondent 1 Respondent registered the domain name monkeysays.com on January 13 2004

the Respondent is considered passive holding registration and use in bad faith is nonetheless established under the doctrine established in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 B Respondent The Respondent did

that the Respondent s current passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name as described above is in all the circumstances and based on previous panel decisions indicative of bad faith The Complainant also says that the Respondent s previous conduct