dating back to 2000 that mere passive holding of a domain name without anything more is a strong indication of bad faith use of the domain name See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and a myriad of other

Exhibit R Such inactive or passive holding constitutes bad faith use Complainant declares especially where Complainant has a strong reputation and is widely known and Respondent has unlawfully impersonated Complainant in email correspondence to

of this Complaint the passive holding of the domain names by the Respondent amounts to the Respondent acting in bad faith Indeed considering i the strong reputation of Complainant trademark and its widespread and international use ii the

name According to Complainant passive holding of a domain name is further evidence of bad faith Through use of the domain name Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to Respondent s web site or other

owner may be considered a passive holder Considering that the domain name was registered in 2002 and having verified that Respondent has never used the domain name actively it is legitimate to believe that Respondent did not even act to use the

website Such inactive or passive holding constitutes bad faith use especially where the Complainant has a strong reputation and is widely known and the Respondent has been involved in several prior UDRP procedures all related to famous marks

nevertheless continued to passively hold the disputed domain name thereafter to the present Under the facts here the Panel views the Respondent knowledge of the Complainant and its mark which was followed by passive holding thereafter as

the domain names amounts to a passive holding situation that falls within the terms of the telstra.org decision Accordingly the Complainant submits that the Panel should order that the domain names be transferred to the Complainant B Respondent The

the disputed domain name is passive holding and supports findings of bad faith registration and use under Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See Disney Enters Inc v Meyers FA 697818 Nat Arb Forum June 26 2006 holding that failure to make active use of a

Dec 7 2000 the Respondent s passive holding of the domain name in this particular case satisfies the requirement of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy that the domain name is being used in bad faith by Respondent The Caravan Club v Mrgsale FA 95314

of the proposition that a passive holding of a domain name suggests that the Respondent registered it for the purpose of selling it to the Complainant for profit The Complainant also relies on the cases Hilton Group Plc v Forum LLC WIPO Case No

name in bad faith by way of passive holding In the case of the domain name legostarwarsdiscount.com it is contended that the facts show that the Respondent registered the domain name primarily to trade off the Complainant famous LEGO mark and

No D2000-0003 that the mere passive holding of a domain name may in appropriate circumstances constitute bad faith use and such passive holding is precisely being complained of in this case Moreover the conduct of the Respondent since replying to

domain name was found to be passive holding such passive holding would equal active use in the present case B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainants contentions 6 Discussion and Findings The Complainants both belong to the

Telstra which was whether a passive holding of the domain name following a bad faith registration could satisfy the Paragraph 4 a iii requirement but also to the issue under consideration in the Octogen trio of cases namely whether a bad faith

it is well established that passive holding of a domain name for almost seven years in violation of third party rights establishes bad faith registration and use In his Additional Submission Respondent notes that as of October 27 2009 att411 with

de Mantenimiento Pasivo Passive Holding Doctrine se puede apreciar que al no utilizar para ningún fin útil el nombre de dominio itunes.com.mx el Titular está actuando de mala fe Señala el Promovente que el caso que dio origen inicialmente

have found bad faith in the passive holding of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a well known and distinctive mark See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel

In any case the continued holding of the disputed domain name by the Respondent is in itself a passive use of the disputed domain name which in the circumstances of this case is in bad faith Accordingly the Panel finds that the disputed domain

this case is an example of passive holding Passive holding is not itself evidence of either good or bad faith but must be interpreted in the context of all of the circumstances of the case see Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows