with the domain name and that passive holding of a domain name permits an inference of registration and use in bad faith see also Mondich v Brown D2000-0004 WIPO Feb 16 2000 holding that the respondent s failure to develop its website in a two year

concludes that Respondent passive holding of the domain name does not establish rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 a ii Respondent s lack of rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name is further

Nat Arb Forum Aug 15 2006 holding that assertions of trademark infringement are entirely misplaced and totally inappropriate for resolution in a domain name dispute proceeding because the UDRP Policy applies only to abusive cybersquatting and

concludes that Respondent passive holding of the domain name does not establish rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 a ii Respondent s lack of rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name is further

a common law mark Nor is any passive holding of the disputed domain name sufficient evidence of bad faith registration by the Respondent when there was no trademark in being at the time of registration Nor is there compelling evidence before the

PANEL DECISION Alarko Holding A.S v � � Case No D2007-0909 1 The Parties The Complainant is Alarko Holding A.S Istambul Turkey represented by Istanbul Patent & Trademark Consultancy Ltd Turkey The Respondent is � � 2 The Domain Name and

forum DECISION Mindware Holdings Inc v Epium Plc Claim Number FA0707001049533 PARTIES Complainant is Mindware Holdings Inc Complainant represented by Martin Smith of Mindware Holdings Inc 2100 County Road C West Roseville MN 55113-2501

more than a year constitutes passive holding and demonstrates bad faith use and registration of the domain names under the Policy Complainant contends that bad faith is shown where a respondent has continued to hold a domain name despite receiving

John Pepin is currently holding the domain name passively The prior registrant of the mark was using the mark in conjunction with a pay-per-click advertising page promoting competing goods and services Complainant contends that the Respondent

also submits that the passive holding of the domain names in dispute by Respondent constitutes bad faith under paragraph 4 b of the Policy Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Respondent The Respondent

argues that the Respondent �s passive holding of the disputed domain name does not preclude a finding of bad faith registration and use under the Policy because the circumstances of the case establish that there is no plausible actual or

in a situation involving a passive holding of the domain name registration Although additional facts are required paragraph 4 b recognizes that inaction � passive holding � in relation to a domain name registration can in certain circumstances

General Electric Co v LaPorte Holdings Inc WIPO D2005-0076 Respondent s passive holding of the WEIRSPM.COM domain name containing the famous Weir Marks prevents the valid owner of a federally registered mark from using its mark Passive holding of a

endorsed by Complainant This passive holding for such a long period leads to an inference of registration and use in bad faith Complainant contacted Respondent by e-mail in October 2004 with a request to purchase the Domain Name When Respondent

claims that Respondent �s passive holding of the Domain Name constitutes bad faith Prior panels have held that the lack of active use of the Domain Name does not prevent a finding of bad faith In Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear

established that the mere passive holding or �parking � of a domain name can evidence bad faith See Advance Magazine Publishers Inc and Les Publications Conde Nast S.A v ChinaVogue.com WIPO Case No D2005-0615 Air Austral v WWW Enterprise Inc

in bad faith the continued passive holding of the domain name even after the website has been removed is an act of bad faith requiring transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant In this regard the present matter is governed by

that after the respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name for five years its unsupported self-serving allegations alone are insufficient to establish that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name

In addition Respondent �s passive holding of the domain name globoi.com constitutes bad faith registration and use of the domain name Respondent is engaged in a bad faith registration and use of domain names such as gwallet.com iogear.com and

according to the doctrine of passive holding there must be some evidence of knowledge of the Complainant �s rights by the Respondent in order to have bad faith in case of passive holding Finally the Respondent states that there is no evidence to