s submissions Respondent passively held the Domain Name from August 19 2000 to February 5 2005 Complainant asserts that it has been found by prior Policy panels that passive holding of a disputed domain name can itself constitute bad faith

argued that the mere passive holding of the domain name toefleasy.com was also use in bad faith To this Panel the fact the domain name was being used in bad faith at a time relatively close to the filing of the Complaint is sufficient

to deepsonspecialist.com the passive holding of this Domain Name constitutes registration and use in bad faith for several reasons EPSON is an inherently distinctive and famous trademark the registration of the Trademark predates the registration

finds that the Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name which is evidence of bad faith Accordingly the third element of the Policy has been met 7 Decision For all the foregoing reasons in accordance with paragraphs 4 i of the

qualifies as a situation of passive holding by the Respondent This passive holding combined with the Complainant having a well-known trade mark and the Respondent not submitting a Response leads in the view of this Panelist to the conclusion that

is indicative of a passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith B Respondent The Respondent submits that although the Complainant has trade mark rights in its BIBI mark that the Disputed Domain Name is not confusingly similar

and argues that Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain names further evidences a lack of legitimate rights citing Americor Mortgage Inc v Bowman FA 93548 NAF April 22 2002 Respondent passive holding of the domain name demonstrates a

not actively used but merely passively held does not obstruct a finding of bad faith if such passive holding is equal to active use The circumstances clearly justify equating passive holding to active use in this case as the Complainants marks

persuaded The nine years of passive holding argues against a long held intention to sell the Disputed Domain Name to Complainant Complainant shows no evidence that Respondent ever contacted Complainant to attempt such a sale or to attempt a sale

circumstances the Respondents passive holding of the disputed domain names and by continuing to direct them to the Complainant website constitutes bad faith The Complainant requests that the disputed domain names be transferred to the Complainant B

circumstances called a passive holdinga The Complainant points out that many WIPO UDRP decisions have held such behavior as bad faith WIPO Case D2006-0557 Banque Transatlantique S.A v Banque Transatlantique regarding bt-atlantic.com a even

SYTradingPost Inc v OS Domain Holdings IV LLC WIPO Case No D2008-0815 and BHP Billiton Innovation Pty Ltd v OS Domain Holdings IV LLC WIPO Case No D2008-0488 Further the Respondent inactivity in relation to the Disputed Domain Name is evidence of

The Panel finds that the passive holding of a domain name that is identical to Complainant s mark is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 c i and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the

Domain Names are now being passively held UDRP panels have consistently held that passive trading of domain names can be considered bad faith use of the domain name in particular see Telstra Corporation Limited v-Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case

such as these the passive holding of a domain name can be considered as bad faith use see e.g Société pour l'Oeuvre et la mémoire d'Anthoine de Saint-Exupéry-Succession Saint Exupéry-D'Agay v Peregos Properties WIPO Case No

and use 4 Respondent s Passive Holding of the Domain Name Demonstrates Bad Faith Prior to being contacted by Ubisoft Respondent was passively holding the domain name Such passive holding also indicates bad faith registration and use Publix

registered in good faith and passively holding while at the same time actively using a disputed domain name Complainant final argument is that the Panel should ignore the requirements of findings under the Policy because a contract entered into

the Respondent has engaged in passive holding of the Domain Name 6.19 Previous UDRP panels have held that in certain circumstances passive holding of a domain name may be indicative of bad faith use Factors relevant to the question of bad faith use

the Panel finds this passive holding of the disputed domain name to support findings that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See Telstra Corp v Nuclear Marshmallows

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