contends that this passive holding amounts to bad faith use The Panel agrees The concept of bad faith use based on passive holding has its origins in the seminal case of Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No

the disputed domain names is passive holding and supports findings of bad faith registration and use under Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See Am Broad Cos Inc v Sech FA 893427 Nat Arb Forum Feb 28 2007 concluding that the respondent s failure to make

of the Disputed Domains is passive Furthermore Complainant has not authorized licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the Mark or the Disputed Domains Respondent registered the Disputed Domains with knowledge that Complainant had

in many UDRP cases that passive holding under the appropriate circumstances falls within the concept of the domain name being used in bad faith Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Action S.A v Robert

Panel have found that the passive holding of domain names can in certain circumstances constitutes use in bad faith In this case 1 the Complainant s rights in PATEK would have been well known and easily established at the date of registration

contends that Respondent s passive holding of the microsoftcertifiedarchitect.net domain name is itself evidence of bad faith registration and use The Panel finds that Respondent s passive holding of the microsoftcertifiedarchitect.net domain

s inactivity amounts to a passive holding and that the Disputed Domain Name was registered in terms of paragraph 4 b ii of the Policy for holding purposes and without any evidence of bona fide activity In addition the Respondent s use of a

name in addition to the passive holding of the domain name reveal that Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith see also Alitalia Linee Aeree Italiane S.p.A v Colour Digital D2000-1260 WIPO Nov 23 2000 finding bad faith

in many UDRP cases that passive holding under the appropriate circumstances falls within the concept of the domain name being used in bad faith Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Action S.A v Robert

in many UDRP cases that passive holding under the appropriate circumstances falls within the concept of a domain name being used in bad faith See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 PRL USA Holdings Inc

is effectively engaged in passive holding within the terms originally established by Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The concept of passive holding typically implies complete inaction on the part of

can be accomplished merely by passively holding a domain name The fourth example paragraph 4 b iv however refers only to improper use and does not appear to require that the domain name also have been registered in bad faith This example thus

inactive is irrelevant since passive holding constitutes evidence of bad faith use where there are other factors present The consensus view in previous WIPO URDP panel decisions has been that t he lack of active use of the domain name does not as

a professional cybersquatter Passive holding of the disputed domain name by the Respondent also leads to a finding of bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings According to

submits that even the passive holding of a domain name that is substantially similar to a well-known trade mark can be indicative of bad faith use See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The

in bad faith because i the passive holding of a domain name is also considered as a bad faith use ii Respondent has provided no evidence whatsoever of any actual or contemplating good faith use of the domain name and iii the registration of a

bad faith in circumstances of passive holding of a domain name There is no evidence that the Respondent has a trade name corresponding to the disputed domain name or that the Respondent has any relevant trademarks The Complainant also says that

de Mantenimiento Pasivo Passive Holding Doctrine argumentando que en el presente caso hay circunstancias que permiten determinar aplicable la doctrina del caso Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows Caso OMPI D2000-0003 según la

anche la mera detenzione c.d passive holding di un nome a dominio costituisce utilizzo in malafade ai sensi della Policy D altro canto il Collegio ha constatato che i Nomi a Dominio re-indirizzano a una pagina web contenente link sposorizzati a

not used which constitutes a passive holding Others direct to a parking page displaying commercial links in several fields Complainant also claims that the Respondent has registered 2100 domain names most of them including a well known mark In