in dispute sbut rather are passively holding it through a �parked � webpage provided courtesy of the Registrar In the circumstances passive holding of a domain name does not constitute use in connection with an offering of goods and services See

said behavior constitutes a passive holding of domain names Finally Complainant contents that the lack of response to Complainant �s cease-and-desist letter and reminder constitutes additional evidence of Respondent �s bad faith B Respondent The

that the respondent s passive holding of the domain name satisfies the requirement of Paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy see also Clerical Med Inv Group Ltd v Clericalmedical.com D2000-1228 WIPO Nov 28 2000 finding that merely holding an

relation to the domain name Passive holding of a domain name is indicative of bad faith use and registration and has been found to be in violation of the paragraph 4 b of the Policy See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case

evidence from Respondent passive holding of a domain name does not constitute �legitimate non-commercial or fair use See Euromarket Designs Inc v Domain For Sale VMI WIPO Case No D2000-1195 October 26 2000 noting that respondent was a passive

registering a domain name and holding it to prevent a trademark owner from registering it can constitute bad faith and refers inter alia to Telstra Corp v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The Complainant states that the Respondent has

PANEL DECISION Danzas Holding AG DHL Operations B.V v Ma Shikai Case No D2008-0441 1 The Parties Complainants are Danzas Holding AG Basel Switzerland and DHL Operations B.V Amsterdam the Netherlands hereinafter �Complainant � Complainant is

a page with no content This passive holding constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 a iii Respondent In its Response Respondent makes the following contentions On June 12 2006 the dotMobi registry began to accept

disputed domain name and the passive holding use to which the domain name has since been put the Complainant contends that it is highly likely that the domain name was registered in direct contemplation of the Complainant �s mark and in bad faith

in certain circumstances of passive holding even non-use as in the case here can constitute bad faith use under the Policy See for example Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and subsequent decisions 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 �s passive holding of the

decided that respondent �s passive holding of the domain names constituted bad faith and stated �The Panel will not wait until the domain names have actually been used before finding bad faith because it is inconceivable that r espondent could

have concluded that a �mere passive holding of a domain name can qualify as bad faith if the domain name owner conduct creates the impression that the name is for sale � see Cruzeiro Licenciamentos Ltda v David Sallen Sallen Enterprises and

name On the issue of whether passive holding of domain names constitute use in bad faith the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Question states that �the lack of active use of the domain name does not as such prevent a finding of

name to the Complainant and passive holding of the disputed domain name is not considered to be a bona fide offering of goods or services as provided by the Policy Paragraph 4 c i The Complainant therefore believes that the Respondent does not

any goods and services It was passively used to redirect the Internet traffic on the Respondent �s main website It was only after the Complainant �s authorized representative �s letter of December 14 2007 that the disputed domain name was activated

web site is known as �passive holding � Passive holding can however even though it may not fit squarely within any of the four inclusive examples set out in paragraph 4 b of the Policy constitute registration and use of a domain name in bad faith

panels have formed that the passive holding of a domain name may in appropriate circumstances amount to evidence of registration and use in bad faith See eg Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 In the present

4 b iv of the Policy The passive holding may also be considered bad faith use of the disputed domain name in certain circumstances in which the Respondent has provided no evidence of any contemplated good faith use see Guerlain S.A v Peikang

the basis that there has been passive holding of the domain name and multiple attempts at communication by the Complainant to seek to purchase the same and no response thereto The evidence of the Complainant points towards some usage in a small