domain names route mere passive holding has been held to constitute use of the domain name in bad faith Telstra Corporation Limited supra Jupiters Limited v Aaron Hall WIPO Case No D2000-0574 Société pour l'Oeuvre et la Mémoire d'Antoine

is considered a case of passive holding of the domain name Prior decisions have ruled that in such cases although active use of a disputed domain name is not essential to establish bad faith the panel must examine all the circumstances of the

it is widely accepted that passive holding of a domain name does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith See e.g Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 finding the respondent passive holding of the domain

the panel established that passive holding of a domain name can be in itself evidence of bad faith where other factors exist Therefore in view of all the above considered points and the special circumstances of this case the Panel concludes that

UDRP proceedings and that the passive holding of the disputed domain name equals active use in bad faith because of the overall circumstances of the case namely the notoriety of the trademark ELECTROLUX the lack of any kind of relationship between

bad faith Respondent passive holding of the hagertys.com domain name does not negate the prior bad faith use and is itself evidence of bad faith especially since there is no possible legitimate good faith use for the domain names save the

name albeit via intermittent passive holding constitutes bad faith use under the Policy The Complainant requests the transfer of the domain name B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant contentions 6 Discussion and Findings The

goodwill in the mark and passive holding of the disputed domain name amount to evidence of registration and use in bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant contentions Under paragraphs 5 e and 14 a of the Rules

Automobili Lamborghini Holding S.p.A v OneandOne Private Registration and Jill Calangian Case No D2008-1443 1 The Parties The Complainant is Automobili Lamborghini Holding S.p.A c/o AUDI AG Ingolstadt Germany represented by HK2

circumstances even inaction passive holding falls within the concept of the domain name being used in bad faith In Telstra it was additionally stated that it is not possible to determine in abstract what circumstances of passive holding other

his bad faith The current passive holding should be viewed as well as bad faith use B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant contentions 6 Discussion and Findings A Language of Proceedings The Registration Agreement is in

on-line presence and the passive holding of a domain name is indicative of bad faith registration and use B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant contentions 6 Due Process Where as in this case a respondent does not submit

for illegitimate purposes The passive holding of the domain name under these circumstances constitutes bad faith use See Ladbroke Group Plc v Sonoma International LDC WIPO Case No D2002-0131 7 Decision For all the foregoing reasons in accordance

concludes that Respondent passive holding of the domain name does not establish rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 a ii Respondent mentions several times in its Response that the only reason why it removed the

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

D2000-0003 which described a passive holding form of bad faith The Complainant also cites as evidence of bad faith the Respondent failure to maintain updated contact information in the WHOIS registry and its non-responsiveness to the Complainant

of the disputed domain name passive holding demonstrates that the domain name is being used in bad faith In the Panel view not all circumstances of passive holding amount to use of a domain name in bad faith and the facts and circumstances of

Sept 6 2000 finding that mere passive holding of a domain name can qualify as bad faith if the domain name owner s conduct creates the impression that the name is for sale see also Educ Testing Serv v TOEFL D2000-0044 WIPO Mar 16 2000 finding that

domain name in question the passive holding constitute an evidence of bad faith According to the prevailing opinion of numerous UDRP panels in some circumstances so called passive holding of a domain name can be treated as its being use in bad

than to offer them for sale Passive holding is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy Paragraph 4 c i and is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy Paragraph 4 c iii See Am Broad Cos Inc v Sech FA 893427 Nat