panel finds that Respondent s passive holding of the Barbie.org domain name for a period of more than two years constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy Paragraph 4 a ii Additionally loss of rights to use a domain name as the result

accuses Respondent of lengthy passive holding It is incredulous for Respondent to claim he had plans to use myfinalfour.com when the domain sat idle with the content unbeknownst to Respondent for four years In his Additional Response Respondent

panels have held that the passive holding of a domain name without making legitimate use of it suggests bad faith See e.g Telstra Corp Nike Inc v Azumano Travel WIPO Case No.D2000-1598 Thomas Cook Holdings Ltd v Tailor Made Travel WIPO Case No

blank This amounts to passive holding of a Domain Name containing a famous trade mark and is bad faith registration and use Respondent has provided false contact details to hide its identity in bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not

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 See Telstra Corporation Limited v.NuclearMarshmallows

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

PANEL DECISION Sports Holdings Inc v Domain Administration Limited c/o David Halstead Case No. D2006-1147 1 The Parties The Complainant is Sports Holdings Inc of Alabama United States of America The Respondent is Domain Administration

show that the Respondent ™s passive holding amounts to acting in bad faith œ ¦ The Administrative Panel has considered whether in the circumstances of this particular Complaint the passive holding of the domain name by the Respondent amounts to

the disputed domain names The passive holding or holding through a parking service is not a legitimate non-commercial use of the disputed domain name The Respondent had actual and constructive notice of the Complainant s marks through the

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

by a protracted period of passive holding is not a legitimate use and therefore is evident of bad faith Respondent s procedurally flawed and unserved complaint does not stay UDRP proceedings ii Respondent makes the following additional

contact the trademark holder Passive holding œConsensus 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

xmstations.com Respondent s passive holding of the Kennedy Domain Names is indicative of a lack of rights or legitimate interests in the domain names See Hotwire Inc v Kiansu Thoi FA 743605 Nat Arb Forum Aug 18 2006 holding that Respondent had no

ago could also be considered passive holding of the domain name The Respondent s passive holding of this domain name which fully incorporates Complainant s NATWEST mark and which can only sensibly be understood to refer to Complainant NatWest Bank

this an example of long-term passive holding Passive holding is not itself evidence of either good or bad faith but must be interpreted in the context of all of the circumstances of the case see Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows

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 fame

with the domain name and that passive holding of a domain name permits an inference of registration and 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

a well-known trademark and passively holding that domain name with no active website are both actions that constitute evidence of bad faith Thus Respondent s passive holding of the Domain Name and refusal to use it in conjunction with an

the GOOGLE mark through its holding of numerous trademark registrations around the world see also Thermo Electron Corp et al v Xu FA 713851 Nat Arb Forum July 12 2006 holding that the complainants established rights in marks because the marks

can be characterized as holding the domain name in a passive way blocking the domain from bona fide use by the Complainant The Complainant further contends that the domain name was registered in bad faith as it was registered on October 26