names 5.A.10 Second the passive holding of two of the disputed domain names insurance-aaa.com and insurance-aaa.info also constitutes bad faith having regard to the circumstances of this case see Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear

standard UDRP case law that passive holding shall not automatically lead to the conclusion that use in bad faith cannot be found As set out in the Telstra case in case of passive holding a panel should judge the matter in the light of all the

of bad faith See Big Dog Holdings Inc dba Big Dog Sportswear v Frank Day Red River Farms Inc NAF Claim No 93554 Therefore passive holding of disputed domain names registrations by Respondent amounts to use in bad faith See also McNeil Consumer

domain name is more than mere passive holding The Complainant has not offered any proof that the Respondent is trying to attract Internet users by confusion The Respondent says this is confirmed by his Affidavit The Respondent argues that the

Internet users or by way of passive holding may amount to bad faith use and registration depending on the circumstances In the present case Complainant has laid a sound evidential basis for its submission that Respondent s conduct is improper In

finds that the Respondent is holding the domain name in bad faith For these above listed circumstances the Panel concludes that the passive holding of the domain name which is subject to this proceeding amounts to a use of the disputed domain name

constituting effectively a passive holding As widely accepted in UDRP decisions the registration of a domain name comprising a well-known trademark without any definable purpose and holding it without bona fide use may be sufficient in itself to

That under the doctrine of passive holding the submission of false information by Respondent is considered a circumstance evidencing bad faith in the registration and use of domain name That providing false contact information violates paragraph

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

whether Respondent passive use of the domain name constitutes bad faith the relevant issue is not whether Respondent is undertaking a positive action in bad faith in relation to the domain name but instead whether in all the

Name in bad faith because passive holding of a domain name can amount to bad faith in the circumstances of this case B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant contentions 6 Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4 a of the Policy

registered iii The Respondent passive holding of the Domain Name ketelone.mobi deliberately prevents the Complainant from reflecting the KETEL ONE trademark in a generic top level domain for mobile devices and links and constitutes bad faith iv the

This is consistent with the passive holding doctrine articulated in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and subsequent UDRP decisions see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions sec 3.2

view that that passive holding does not constitute bad faith per se The Panel found bad faith in that case because among other things a parking website was operated with the knowledge that it infringes the trademark of another As set

for a period of 10 years i.e passive holding cannot constitute a legitimate interest Complainant contends that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith Complainant argues that because the disputed domain name is

websites or so-called passive holding UDRP panels have adhered to the approach outlined in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows supra In Telstra the panel explored the question of which circumstances of inaction or passive

conclusion that a r espondent passive holding amounts to bad faith Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 February 18 2000 stating that paragraph 4 b recognizes that inaction e.g passive holding in relation to a

circumstances of the case the passive holding of a domain name can amount to the use of a domain name in bad faith see Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The Complainant submits that the following factors

s non-commercial and passive holding of the other three disputed domain names is evidence of bad faith Respondent s registration of the disputed domain names despite knowledge of Complainant Common Law and Registered Rights in the COOCHY®

in bad faith followed by a passive holding of a domain name when there is no way in which it could be used legitimately can amount to use in bad faith Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 In addition it