See Janus Interantional 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

this proceeding to justify a holding to the contrary under paragraph 4 a ii Respondent denial of any benefit from pay-per-click advertising is simply untrue Presumably the registrar factored potential revenue to be generated from advertisements or

not in use but are subject to passive detention preventing the Complainant from their use for its legitimate activities B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant contentions 6 Discussion and Findings Although no Response was

disputed domain name is being passively held for no apparent purpose While a domain name may legitimately be passively held during a period good faith planning and development this case presents no such circumstances The apparent transfer of the

The Complainant submits that passive holding of the domain name may constitute bad faith use and relies upon Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallow WIPO Case No D2000-0003 In the absence of submissions to the contrary the Panel accepts

circumstances of a case The passive holding of a domain name registration can in certain circumstances constitute a domain name use in bad faith Guerlain S.A v Peikang WIPO Case No D2000-0055 Having regard to the registrations and extent of use

panelists that have held that passive holding is proof of bad faith Respondent s Additional Submission In its Response to Additional also timely submitted Respondent contends as follows Complainant appears to either have failed to examine the

that it is being held as a passive holding within the principle in Tesltra Corp v Nuclear Mushrooms supra becomes stronger The Panel find that this passive holding consitutes bad faith registration and use within the meaning of Policy Paragraph

relies upon is the Respondent passive holding of the disputed domain name In Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 the circumstances that indicated that passive holding amounted to use of domain name in bad

disputed domain name and mere passive holding thereof constitutes bad faith See Aeroturbine Inc v Domain Leasing Ltd NAF Claim No 93674 Nat Arb Forum March 23 2000 bad faith registration followed by inaction or passive holding constitutes bad faith

alleges that Respondent is passively holding the Disputed Domain Names and offering them for sale Complainant alleges that respondent has never been commonly known by the names smart or smartcenter and that Respondent is listed in the WHOIS

in certain circumstances a passive holding of a domain name can amount to bad faith See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 on these facts there is insufficient evidence for the Panel to infer 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

PANEL DECISION PRL USA Holdings Inc v Liming Wang Case No D2009-1040 1 The Parties The Complainant is PRL USA Holdings Inc of New York United States of America The Respondent is Liming Wang of Guangzhou Guangdong Province the People Republic

1999 This demonstrates the passive holding of the domain name by the Respondent The Panel notes here that passive holding of a domain name without more does not establish bad faith under Policy Paragraph 4 a iii Moreover the evidence before the

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

Policy citing the Respondent passive holding of the disputed domain names in the context of the Complainant rights in the world famous BASKIN ROBBINS trademarks 5.A.13 Also the Respondent failure to transfer the disputed domain names and his

known to Respondent the passive holding of the disputed domain name by the Respondent constitutes sufficient evidence of bad faith and the lack of reply to the warning letter constitutes further evidence of the bad faith of Respondent B

to this domain name as such passive holding of the domain name is equal to active use in the present case 6C-9 The Complainant further submits that the circumstances in this case clearly justify the finding of bad faith of passive holding and

relies on the Respondents passive holding of porscheguides.com for over five years and the use of false contact details in relation to this Domain Name as evidence of bad faith Finally the Complainant points to Mr Chen attempt to sell the