rights 6 Respondent s passive holding of the Domain Name presents a likelihood of confusion to relevant consumers will frustrate consumers and prevents consumers from accessing Complainant s web site to obtain Complainant s goods and

concluded that Respondent �s passive holding of the domain name satisfies the requirement of Policy 4 a iii Complainant contends that Respondent intends to prevent Complainant from registering the disputed domain name and Respondent intends to

domain name by the Respondent passive holding of a domain name may in certain circumstances be held to constitute a �use � of a domain name particularly where as in the present instance it would prevent the Complainant from registering its

asserts that the present passive holding can amount to the Respondent acting in bad faith due to the fact that the Respondent a would like to profit from the fame of the Complainant �s trademark with significant potential for consumers

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 Hewlett-Packard Co v Rayne FA 101465 Nat Arb Forum Dec 17 2001 finding that the under

as evidence of bad faith The passive holding of a domain name has been held to evidence bad faith use of the names where there are other factors present Telstra Corporation v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Teachers Insurance and

The combination of the passive holding of the domain name the providing of false and/or misleading information in connection with the registration of the domain name and the absence of any basis for a finding of good faith leads to the

to the domain name and mere passive holding thereof constitutes bad faith See Aeroturbine Inc v Domain Leasing Ltd NAF Case No FA0093674 bad faith registration followed by inaction or passive holding constitutes bad faith use of domain name under

that the Respondent �s passive holding of the domain name amounts to illicit use B Respondent The Respondent denies that each of the three elements specified in paragraph 4 a of the Policy is given in the present case 1 The Respondent

UDRP decisions have held that passive holding of domain names can also constitute use in bad faith See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Association of British Travel Agents Ltd v Sterling Hotel Group Ltd

to the Respondent �s �passive holding � of the Domain Name and refers to a previous decision in which that doctrine is articulated The Complainant contends that this case is just such a case where the Respondent �s passive holding of the Domain

true and it is not the mere passive holding of an infringing domain name along with her knowledge of Korbel rights in the KORBEL mark constitutes bad faith More important Respondent cannot avoid liability for an improper use of an infringing

of use indicates illegitimate passive holding which previous panels have considered to be use in bad faith � In this respect the Complainant relies on Telstra Corporation Ltd v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 In Telstra the panel found

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 Bloomberg L.P v Sandhu FA 96261 Nat Arb Forum Feb 12 2001

that case it was decided that passive holding of a domain name could amount to use in bad faith in certain circumstances Such circumstances include 1 where the Complainant �s trademark has a strong reputation and is widely known and 2 where it is

Clifford Chance LLP v Beroca Holdings B.V.I Limited WIPO Case No D2007-0693 Advance Magazine Publishers Inc v Beroca Holdings B.V.I Limited WIPO Case No D2007-0026 and N M Rothschild & Son Limited and Others v Beroca Holdings B.V.I Limited WIPO

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 Ltd v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 In addition it would be

that the Respondent �s passive holding of the domain name in dispute is conclusive evidence of bad faith However without sufficient evidence that a complainant �s mark is well-known passive holding is not enough to sustain such a conclusion

traffic to itself Although passive holding of a domain name may not in itself be evidence of bad faith it has been held to be so by other previous panels where other factors exist Pepperdine University v BDC Partners Inc WIPO Case No D2006-1003

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