faith Prior panels have found passive holding constitutes bad faith when the respondent failed to make active use of a confusingly similar domain name and the complainant s rights in a mark predated the respondent s registration For example in

other indicators of bad faith passive holding of a domain name can constitute use in bad faith for the purposes of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy see Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 In this case there is

currently parked Respondent passive holding of the website for almost five years evidences a lack of legitimate rights Lastly Respondent is not and has not been commonly known by the domain name Respondent does not use the Trademarks to identify

Panel finds that Respondent s passive holding of the movieinsider.org domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use of the domain under Policy Paragraph 4 a iii DECISION There being insufficient evidence in the record to permit a

contends that Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name is causing Complainant to lose potential customers but submits no proof of lost customers or any proof of confusion in the industry Complainant also believes that Respondent

the Panel concludes that the passive holding of the Domain Name in this particular case satisfies the requirement of paragraph 4 a iii that the domain name is being used in bad faith 7 Decision For all the foregoing reasons in accordance with

and Respondent inactivity and passive holding of the domain names is bad faith Respondent had knowledge of Complainant trademarks and business names when he registered the disputed domain names Complainant marks are well-known in many markets and

the length of time that the passive holding has occurred the Panel finds given the particular circumstances surrounding this case that Respondent s passive holding of the peaceandlove.com domain name does not constitute use in bad faith pursuant

may be considered as a passive holdinga iii the Respondent has shown its availability to transfer to the Complainant the disputed domain name for the unreasonable amount of EUR 25.000 which clearly demonstrates that the Respondent obtained

with the Trademark The passive holding of domain names may amount to or lead to an inference of inappropriate conduct in breach of the UDRP In the present situation while the position is less than clear there is sufficient material for the

Complainant submits that the passive holding of the domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to its well known and distinctive marks constitutes a bad faith registration and cites the decision of the panel in Telstra Corporation

is clearly established that passive holding of a domain name as such does not prevent a finding of bad faith WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views par 3.2 It is also evident that the Respondent s purpose in registering the disputed domain name if not

in bad faith followed by a passive holding of a domain name when there is no way in which it could be used legitimately can amount to use in bad faith Telstra Corporation Ltd v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 In addition it would be

as the Complainant The passive holding for more than 14 years of a domain name confusingly similar to a third party s well-known registered trademark without that third party s consent cannot constitute nor justify a right or a legitimate

under the UDRP of inaction / passive holding that may constitute bad faith use see Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 CBS Broadcasting Inc v Edward Enterprises WIPO Case No D2000-0242 For all these reasons

Complainant points out that passive holding under certain circumstances may be seen as use in bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4 a of the Policy lists three

store since 1999.2 Such passive holding of domain names has been held to be a non-legitimate use See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and PRL USA Holdings Inc v Liming Wang WIPO Case No D2009-1040 The

page This is more than the passive holding mentioned in several decisions where the domain names did not resolve in any active page and according to the prevailing UDRP decisions orientation is more than enough to justify a finding of use in bad

PANEL DECISION Western Union Holdings Inc v Awadallah Adnan 2707R Case No D2010-0818 1 The Parties The Complainant is Western Union Holdings Inc of Englewood Colorado United States of America represented by The GigaLaw Firm United States The

factors demonstrate bad faith passive holding In particular Respondent s registration of several domain names all of which contain Complainant s trademark represents a pattern that indicates bad faith Respondent s failure to respond to any