under the UDRP inactivity or passive holding of a domain name may be construed as bad faith use B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant �s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 15 a of the Rules the

that in view of Respondent �s passive holding of the disputed domain name its failure to submit a Response and the longstanding use of the BEI marks Complainant has established that the domain name in issue was registered and is being used in bad

finds that the Respondent �s passive holding of the Domain Name meets the requirement of paragraph 4 a iii that the Domain Name �is being used in bad faith � by the Respondent based on the following circumstances i The Complainant �s trademark is

with inaction or passive holding being within the concept of a domain name being used in bad faith It depends therefore on all circumstances of the case whether it can be said that the Respondent is acting in bad faith The question

PANEL DECISION Orbis Holdings Limited v Lu A Feng First Respondent and Orbis Search Second Respondent Case No D2007-0515 1 The Parties The Complainant is Orbis Holdings Limited represented by Mallesons Stephen Jaques Australia The First

the Respondent has been passively holding the domain name which amounts to bad faith B Respondent The Respondent contends first that the Complainant has no trademark rights either registered or common law sufficient to support its Complaint

contact the trademark holder Passive holding Consensus view The lack of active use of the domain name does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith The panel must examine all the circumstances of the case to determine whether respondent is

to Complainant due to its passive holding not used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services On this background Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the

the Domain Name amounts to a passive holding registration that can constitute bad faith for the purposes of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant �s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings

that the respondent s passive holding of the domain name satisfies the requirement of Paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy see also Caravan Club v Mrgsale FA 95314 Nat Arb Forum Aug 30 2000 finding that the respondent made no use of the domain

of the domain name amounts to passive holding The Complainant cites Telstra Corporation v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 in support of this claim B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant �s contentions 6 Discussion

Co WIPO Case No D2000-0163 holding that Respondent �s domain name �is so obviously connected with such a well-known product that its very use by someone with no connection with the product suggests opportunistic bad faith � Finally the passive

had demonstrated bad faith by passively holding the domain name despite his constructive knowledge of complainant s trademark Complainant supports these contentions and arguments by a listing of its worldwide trademark registrations its corporate

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

Complainant contends that the passive holding of a domain name can constitute use in bad faith especially when the domain name is held with the purpose of earning money B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant �s contentions 6

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

the Respondent has been passively holding the domain names it must have had knowledge of the trademark when it registered the domain names Moreover the trademark is famous and has a strong reputation and the Respondent could only have

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

effectively amounts to passive domain name holding in this case The Respondent has failed to put the domain name to any active use save as the address on a parking page and this was in all likelihood done in the knowledge that the domain

finding that the respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain names demonstrates that the respondent is not using the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy Paragraph 4 c i or a legitimate