that the respondent s passive holding of the domain name satisfies the requirement of Paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy see also Mondich v Brown D2000-0004 WIPO Feb 16 2000 holding that the respondent s failure to develop its website in a two

so well-known a mark that the holding of the registration for a decade with or without use should constitute Telstra-like bad faith passive use See Telstra Corp Ltd v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 February 18 2000 œ I naction e.g

Publishers Inc v Beroca Holdings B.V.I Limited WIPO Case No D2007-0026 Kurt Geiger Limited and Beroca Holdings B.V.I Limited WIPO Case No D2007-0195 Clifford Chance LLP v Beroca Holdings B.V.I Limited WIPO Case No D2007-0693 In each of these

In any case the continued holding of the Domain Name by the Respondent is in itself a passive use of the Domain Name which in the circumstances of this case is in bad faith The third requirement of the Policy is satisfied 7 Decision For all the

that the Respondent ™s passive holding of the disputed domain name javavegas.com is evidence of bad faith as is the Respondent ™s transfer of the other domain names following notification of the Complaint The Complainant requests a decision

bad faith The Respondent ™s passive holding of the domain name at issue constitutes bad faith use of the domain name B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant ™s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings A Identical or Confusingly

arbitration forum DECISION OP Holdings LLC v Optical Provider of South Korea c/o Daehan Minguk Claim Number FA0711001110751 PARTIES Complainant is OP Holdings LLC Complainant represented by Roberta S Bren of Oblon Spivak McClelland Maier & Neustadt

s conclusion that Respondent passive holding of the domain name demonstrates a lack of rights and legitimate interests Respondent is not a licensee of Complainant nor is Respondent otherwise authorized to use Complainant marks for any purpose 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 Panel finds that Policy Paragraph 4 a ii has been satisfied Registration and Use in Bad

purpose is cybersquatting The passive holding of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a well known trademark constitutes registration and use of the domain name in bad faith B Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant

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

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

is the Respondents ™ largely passive holding the Domain Names resolve to a parking webpage containing sponsored links With reference to General Growth Properties Inc v Baker Ballantine WIPO Case No D2005-0919 the Complainants put forward that such

concludes that Respondent passive holding of the domain name does not establish rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 a ii see also Boeing Co v Bressi D2000-1164 WIPO Oct 23 2000 finding no rights or legitimate interests

registration and long term passive holding of a domain name with knowledge of another ™s trademark rights amounts to registration and use of the domain name in bad faith See e.g Jones Apparel Group Inc v Robin Sousa WIPO Case No D2001-1308 6

circumstances of inaction passive holding other than those identified in paragraphs 4 b i ii and iii can constitute a domain name being used in bad faith This question cannot be answered in the abstract the question can only be answered in

that a respondent s passive holding of a 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

concludes that Respondent passive holding of the domain name does not establish rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 a ii see also Am Online Inc v Kloszewski FA 204148 Nat Arb Forum Dec 4 2003 Respondent passive holding

that any future use of the passively-held domain name would be in bad faith and because the Panel could not imagine a circumstance where respondent could use that domain name in good faith Indymac Bank F.S.B v Jim Hogan NAF FA0312000220042

Corporation Limited supra passive holding of a domain name can be considered as bad faith where it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the disputed domain name that would not be illegitimate See