the Respondent present almost passive holding of the Domain Name qualifies as a bad faith use under the Policy To the extent that a website might be genuinely under construction at the Domain Name it is apparent that it is or will be a commercial

for the purpose of passive holding Complainant maintains various websites similar to the domain names which present what it believes to be bogus content of car related information such as mazda-online.com mazdas-online.com and

the domain name and that the passive holding of the disputed domain name since registration constitutes bad faith registration B Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant contentions 6 Discussion and Findings Under paragraph 4 a of the

of the Complainant The passive holding of a domain name confusingly similar to a competitor trademark cannot constitute nor justify a right or a legitimate interest For these reasons the Panel finds that the second element of the Policy is

use is therefore limited to passive holding As recognized in numerous previous decisions passive holding of a domain name may be regarded as bad faith use in the sense described in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No

concludes that the Respondent passive holding of the domain name in this particular case satisfies the requirement of paragraph 4 a iii that the domain name is being used in bad faith by the Respondent Also particularly given the fame of the

Respondent iv The Respondent passive holding of the Domain Name that resolves to a Sedo web page containing sponsored links constitutes bad faith The Complainant requests a decision that the Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant

Clifford Chance LLP v Beroca Holdings B.V.I Limited WIPO Case No D2007-0693 concerning the domain name cliffordchance.mobi G Kuoni Reisen Holding AG v Beroca Holdings B.V.I Limited WIPO Case No D2007-0216 concerning the domain name kuoni.mobi H

and that Respondent s passive holding of the domain name is evidence of bad faith Based upon these assertions Complainants allege that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith B Respondent Respondent denies

to register its domain name Passively holding the domain name potentially hinders the trade mark owner from registering and using the same when such needs arise in the course of business and therefore damages the trade mark owner legitimate

have ascertained that passive holding of a domain name may be sufficient to constitute bad faith use The Panel must however examine all the circumstances of the case to determine whether Respondent is acting in bad faith The question is

clearly held that already the passive holding of the domain name by the Respondent amounts to acting in bad faith In the case Pomellato S.p.A.v Richard Tonetti WIPO Case No D2000-0493 it was held that the non-response to a Complainant is indicative

has been bad faith use by passive holding in the sense described in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 While that case established that all of the circumstances must be looked at an important

with the Complainant that the passive holding of Domain Name in the present circumstances is further evidence of bad faith use of the Domain Name Repeated UDRP panels have considered that the passive use of a domain name could constitute in certain

with the Complainant that the passive holding of Domain Name in the present circumstances is further evidence of bad faith use of the Domain Name Repeated UDRP panels have considered that the passive use of a domain name could constitute in certain

Finally Respondent s current passive holding of the Domain Name which fully incorporates Complainant s trademark identically and in its entirety is also evidence of bad faith More specifically inaction in relation to a domain name registration

also used in bad faith Mere passive holding of the domain names can in certain circumstances be evidence of use in bad faith Examples of circumstances that can indicate bad faith include Complainant having a well-known trademark no response to

this case there has only been passive holding of the Domain Name there has nevertheless been both registration and use in bad faith since the facts of this cases are essentially the same as those in Telstra Corporation Limted v Nuclear Marshmallows

to Walmart website amounts to passive holding and the Complainant again relying on earlier UDRP panel decisions represents that the disputed domain name will better serve the community of Internet users by transferring it to a legitimate user

uso de mala fe en casos de passive holding En consecuencia la inactividad de un sitio de Internet bajo un nombre de dominio registrado no es obstáculo para interpretar la mala fe en el uso de la Demandada ver Telstra Corporation Limited v