Forum Dec 4 2003 Respondent passive holding of the aolfact.com domain name for over six months is evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name In addition the record and WHOIS information do not provide any

the Panel notes that passive holding may in certain instances amount to a bad-faith use of a domain name under the Policy taking into consideration all the circumstances of the case Telstra Corporation Ltd v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case

a domain name and that such passive holding permits an inference of registration and use in bad faith In addition it appears that Respondent registered the iplacement.biz domain name with at least constructive knowledge of Complainant s rights in

of the domain name and passive holding to find bad faith In order to determine whether the Respondent is acting in bad faith or not all the circumstances of the case must be examined See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows

concludes that Respondent passive holding of the domain name does not establish rights or legitimate interests pursuant to UDRP Policy Paragraph 4 a ii The Panel finds that Policy Paragraph 4 a ii has been satisfied Registration and Use in Bad

support of an argument that passive holding of a domain name can constitute bad faith registration and use Certainly there are some situations where passive holding can amount to bad faith registration and use but findings of bad faith

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

circumstances in which the passive holding of a domain name may amount to bad faith where for example there is evidence that the Complainant ™s trademark is well-known the Respondent has engaged in deliberately misleading contact and has

to sell it constitutes a passive holding that is evidence of bad faith Respondent s prior use of the disputed domain name had the effect of attracting Internet users to the Mountain Realty web site by creating a likelihood of confusion as to

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

under the Telstra analysis passive holding of a domain name may support a finding of bad faith use where under the totality of circumstances it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the disputed domain

grupofcc.net is in blank so passive use of a domain name is bad faith use in accordance with numerous decisions of the Center B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant ™s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings Due to the fact

™s website iii The passive holding of a domain name in circumstances such as these is evidence of bad faith use See Banque Transatlantique S.A v Banque Transatlantique WIPO Case No D2006-0557 Audi AG v Hans Wolf WIPO Case No 2001-0148

™s showing of respondent ™s passive holding of the domain name in question without any use or plan to use the domain name in connection with the bona fide sale of goods and services under paragraph 4 a ii did not support an inference of bad faith

Forum Dec 4 2003 Respondent passive holding of the aolfact.com domain name for over six months is evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name see also State Fair of Texas v State Fair Guides FA 95066 Nat Arb

wherein the Panel held that passive holding of a domain name may disrupt the business of Complainant such as by confusing Internet users who are attempting to reach Complainant ™s site However even more potentially damaging is the possibility

Complainant ™s website v The passive holding of a domain name in circumstances such as these is evidence of bad faith use See Banque Transatlantique S.A v Banque Transatlantique WIPO Case No D2006-0557 Audi AG v Hans Wolf WIPO Case No 2001-0148

that a respondent s passive holding of a domain name satisfies the requirements 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

Respondent has engaged in passive holding of the domain names Respondent admits to having offered third party links to offset annual registration costs of these sites Respondent s registration of the domain names and its use of the terms for

is within the concept A passive holding in relation to a domain name registration can in certain circumstances constitute a domain name use in bad faith It is said in the decision that œin considering whether a passive holding of a domain