activities of others and iv passive holding constitutes an evidence of bad faith use where there are other factors present B Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainants � contentions 6 Discussion and Findings A Multiple Complainants The

respondent �s �inaction � or passive holding of the domain name could constitute bad faith registration and use could only be determined by analyzing the facts in a given case In the present case Respondent registered the domain name at issue

asserts that Respondent �s passive holding this domain name is in itself bad faith Complainant also asserts that in the aggregate Respondent �s registration of seven domain names incorporating Complainant �s marks to attract customers to

company Respondent s current passive holding of the domain name also constitutes bad faith use The domain name is currently inactive Complainant s use and registration of the PRICELESS mark and the success of its PRICELESS TV commercials long

Nat Arb Forum July 27 2001 passive holding of a domain name does not establish rights in that domain name Hewlett-Packard Co v Rayne FA 101465 Nat Arb Forum Dec 17 2001 Complainant respectfully asserts that it has met its burden of proving that

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

by Complainant e The passive holding of the domain name is not a bona fide offering of goods or services and also not a non-commercial or fair use f Respondent has not engaged in any action that shows he has right or legitimate interests

WIPO Sept 6 2000 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 DCI S.A v Link Commercial Corp D2000-1232 WIPO Dec 7 2000

show that the Respondent �s passive holding amounts to acting in bad faith � The Panel further observes that in the facts and circumstances of the case the passive holding of the domain name by the Respondent amounts to the Respondent acting in

WIPO Sept 6 2000 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 Clerical Med Inv Group Ltd v Clericalmedical.com D2000-1228 WIPO

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

what circumstances of passive holding other than identified in paragraphs 4 b i-iii of the Policy can constitute bad faith use and in considering whether the passive holding of a domain name following its bad faith registration satisfies

�s conduct constitutes passive holding of the Domain Name and thus bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4 b iii of the Policy registering the domain name for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor There is no evidence

industry The Respondent �s passive holding of the disputed domain name and the Respondent �s failure to respond to the Complainant �s letters further demonstrate use in bad faith The Complainant requests that the Panel issue a decision that

revenue �per-click � from passive holding of the domain name and makes no good faith use of the name Complainant contends that since �hurriyet � is a Turkish word and Respondent is knowledgeable of the Turkish language Respondent therefore knew

circumstances also encompass passive holding see the landmark case Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 7 Decision For all the foregoing reasons in accordance with paragraphs 4 i of the Policy and 15 of the

That type of so-called passive holding has long been decided as use in bad faith under the Policy in circumstances such as these where the trademark is well known and there is no legitimate reason for the respondent s actions See Telstra v

with the domain name and that passive holding of a domain name permits an inference of registration and use in bad faith see also Alitalia Linee Aeree Italiane S.p.A v Colour Digital D2000-1260 WIPO Nov 23 2000 finding bad faith where the

concludes that Respondent passive holding of the domain name does not establish rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 a ii The spelling of the disputed domain name and Respondent s previous use suggests that Respondent

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