4 a i See Janus International Holding Co v Scott Rademacher WIPO Case No D2002-0201 finding that the registration of a mark is prima facie evidence of validity which creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently distinctive

PANEL DECISION PRL USA HOLDINGS INC v Private Whois Service Case No D2010-0816 1 The Parties The Complainant is PRL USA Holdings Inc of New York New York United States of America represented by Greenberg Traurig LLP United States of America

that Respondent is engaged in passive holding of the disputed domain name as established in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 In support Complainant points to the fact that Respondent does not use the

s PANDORA mark and even the passive holding of some also demonstrates a pattern of conduct that is illustrative of the Respondents bad faith B Respondents The Respondents did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings

is considered as being passive holding of the Domain Name and therefore it may amount to the Domain Name being used in bad faith Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Further relevant circumstances

search engine website in holding that the domain names were registered and used in bad faith pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 b iv see also Williams-Sonoma Inc v Fees FA 937704 Nat Arb Forum Apr 25 2007 holding that the use of a confusingly

of BHP Billiton Ltd holding some of BHP Billiton s intellectual property There are then set out several domain names registered in favour of BHP Billiton A consideration of Annexure 5 shows in fact a number of different registrant names

has merely been directed to a holding page with no attempt to profit from or damage the Complainant s reputation under the name Evoq The Complainant has not shown that its mark is so well-known that passive holding could in this circumstance

Moreover the Respondent is holding passively the disputed domain name It is well established since Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 that the mere passive holding of a domain name may in appropriate

instant case Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name The passive holding of a domain name can constitute bad faith use especially when combined with other factors such as Respondent preventing a trademark or service mark holder

To the Complainant the actual passive holding of the disputed domain name by the Respondent clearly shows the lack of any legitimate interest and the opportunistic conduct of the Respondent whose sole and real goal was to obtain an unfair advantage

websites or so-called passive holding WIPO UDRP panels have adhered to the approach outlined in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows supra In Telstra the panel explored the question of which circumstances of inaction or

interest in the word kokeshi Passive holding of the disputed domain name is not proven but even if it is passive holding is not evidence of either good or bad faith It must be interpreted in the context of each case The Respondent seeks a finding

domain name at all and passive holding may also be considered as using a domain name 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 provides that

the Respondent has held passively the disputed domain name It is well established since Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallow WIPO Case No D2000-0003 that the mere passive holding of a domain name may in appropriate circumstances

of this case including the passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name with a placekeeper site the comparatively recent registration of the Disputed Domain Name is indicative of bad faith The Complainant notes in particular that the contact

have consistently held that passive holding of domain names can under certain circumstances be considered bad faith use of the domain name See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and Polaroid Corporation v

disputed domain name but is passively holding it To the Complainant s knowledge the Respondent has never been commonly known by the disputed domain name As a result the Complainant believes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate

registering it March 24 2009 Passive holding of a domain name is evidence of Respondent s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name Not until his additional submission after Complainant raised the issue did Respondent

Complainant contends that a passive holding of the disputed domain names is evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names The Panel finds that Respondent s failure to make an active use of the