domain name amounts to passive holding by the Respondent and a finding in the circumstances of use of bad faith � See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallos WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Parfums Christian Dior v 1 Net Power Inc WIPO

domain name amounts to passive holding by the Respondent and a finding in the circumstances of use of bad faith � See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallos WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Parfums Christian Dior v 1 NetPower Inc WIPO Case

others choose the content Passive holding of a domain name is neither evidence of or against bad faith and must be evaluated in light of all of the circumstances relating to the domain name Respondent might have a case in the situation that it

28 2000 finding that merely holding an infringing domain name without active use can constitute use in bad faith see also DCI S.A v Link Commercial Corp D2000-1232 WIPO Dec 7 2000 concluding that the respondent s passive holding of the domain

its OPUS DEI In addition the passive holding of the disputed domain name may qualify in the circumstances of the case as a further indication of bad faith use The Panel notes in this respect that the Complainant and its OPUS DEI mark are widely

not apply to every example of passive holding and that the question of bad faith passive holding can only be answered in respect of the particular facts of a specific case noting that in that case the trademark was particularly well known the

service Moreover its current passive holding amounts to bad faith taking into account the fame of Complainant �s mark Respondent �s failure to reply to Complainant �s communications and Respondent �s apparent provision of false and/or inaccurate

In addition the apparent passive holding of the disputed domain name by the Respondent provides in the circumstances a further indication of lack of good faith In direct connection to the other findings in this case having regard to the

WIPO UDRP panelists is that passive holding � shall not automatically lead to the conclusion that use in bad faith � cannot be found Instead a panel should judge the matter in the light of all the circumstances of the case Telstra Corporation

and use by means of passive holding The third element of the Policy may be satisfied when � as is the case here � the domain name incorporates a well-known trademark there is no Response filed the Registrant has taken steps to conceal its

Complainant contends that the passive holding of the disputed domain name by the Respondent since its registration constitutes bad faith registration and use citing the following cases Inter-IKEA Systems B.V v SC Agis International Sport S.R.L WIPO

28 2000 finding that merely holding an infringing domain name without active use can constitute use in bad faith see also DCI S.A v Link Commercial Corp D2000-1232 WIPO Dec 7 2000 concluding that the respondent s passive holding of the domain

preparation of the decision Passive holding is defined as the lack of active use of the domain name and it has been held in various cases to constitute an indicator of bad faith The Panel therefore notes the lack of use of the disputed domain

The Panel finds that the passive holding of a domain name that is identical to Complainant s mark is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 c i see also Hewlett-Packard Co v Shemesh FA 434145 Nat Arb Forum

reference to a situation of passive holding as it reads �This domain has been blocked � There is no reason why Respondent should have any right or interest in the Domain Name The Domain Name was registered in bad faith since at the time of the

on Respondent �s current passive holding of the domain name at issue and in the absence of any evidence of demonstrable preparations to use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services Previous panels have found

Policy that a respondent �s passive holding of a domain name does not preclude a finding of bad faith registration and use Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Accordingly the Panel finds that the 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 Respondent registered the disputed domain names for the purposes of

page and the Respondent is holding on to this domain name passively Passive holding of domain names have consistently been held by UDRP panelists to constitute bad faith See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case

resolve to active sites passive holding of domain names is actionable under the UDRP as is explained in Pfizer Inc v Order Viagra Online WIPO Case No D2002-0366 It is more likely than not that you have registered this domain name with the