is currently profiting by its passive holding of the domain and by Internet users seeking Success Bank by featuring pay-per-click ads by Google on the website The domain was registered in bad faith and/or is being used in bad faith for the

Registering a domain name and passively holding it has been considered to be evidence of use in bad faith in many UDRP cases In the present case inactivity by the Respondent amounts to the disputed domain name being used in bad faith In the present

that have recognised that passive holding does not preclude a finding of bad faith use It does not say that passive holding is equivalent to bad faith use In any event in this case there has been more than passive holding There has instead been

Nat Arb Forum July 31 2000 holding that the respondent s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true see also Talk City Inc v Robertson D2000-0009 WIPO Feb 29 2000 In the

interest in the domain name Passively holding a domain name in such circumstances is not a legitimate interest The Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the

it is well established that passive holding of a domain name may equal acting in bad faith See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Jupiters Limited v Aaron Hall WIPO Case No D2000-0574 Ladbroke Group Plc v

PANEL DECISION TPI Holdings Inc v Carmen Armengol Case No D2009-0361 1 The Parties Complainant is TPI Holdings Inc of Atlanta Georgia United States of America Complainant represented by Dow Lohnes PLLC United States of America Respondent

such as here the passive holding of a domain name to divert Internet users searching for websites relating to the Complainant to the Respondent website or to prevent the Complainant from exploiting the domain name himself is evidence

de Mantenimiento Pasivo Passive Holding Doctrine y al hecho de que en el sitio correspondiente exista contenido de enlaces automatizados a productos para mujer aleatorios y el que contiene la leyenda el dominio lizclaiborne.com.mx está en

Complainant the Respondent passive holding also amounts to acting in bad faith inter alia as the Respondent provided incorrect contact details for use as WhoIs data B Respondent The Respondent claims that the Complaint is an abuse of the UDRP

de Mantenimiento Pasivo Passive Holding Doctrine se puede apreciar que al no actualizar por muchos meses el nombre de dominio en disputa el Titular está actuando de mala fe Es evidente la mala fe del Titular ya que el contenido de los

Complainant contends that the passive holding of a domain name is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy or a noncommercial or fair use and submits screenprint evidence to show that when checked the disputed domain names

of bad faith Even the passive holding of a domain name by a respondent to prevent the complainant from exploiting it in accordance with his trademark rights also constitutes bad faith See Kabushiki Kaisha Hitachi Seisakusho v APT Co WIPO

domain names it is currently holding in a passive manner sometime in 2009 Complainant claims ownership of AAA and AAA VACATIONS trademarks Complainant claims priority of ownership of these trademarks over the date Respondent registered the

finds that in this case the passive holding evidences bad faith As also established in a number of prior cases the concept of bad faith use in paragraph 4 b of the Policy includes not only positive action but also passive holding see the landmark

claims that the Respondent passive holding of the disputed domain name is evidence of bad faith The Complainant cites various past cases under the Policy to support its case in relation to each of these elements B Respondent The Respondent

engine homepage The active or passive nature of this holding indicates bad faith in combination with other factors The Google search engine homepage displays no information related to the Complainant and cannot be considered as a form of legitimate

relies on the idea of passive holding as established in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 This case established the proposition that doing nothing with a domain name may amount to bad faith

In overview the Respondent is holding the disputed domain name passively It has long been generally held in UDRP decisions that the passive holding of a domain name that incorporates a well known trademark without obvious use for an Internet

name for the purpose of passively holding it for sale and redirecting Internet users interested in another s products is not a bona fide offering of goods pursuant to paragraph 4 c i of the Policy or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use