The Respondent ™s mere passive holding of the disputed domain name in this case and the fact that the Respondent has not presented any reasons evidence or arguments of a legitimate interest in using the disputed domain names indicates that

Respondent Respondent ™s passive holding of domain names suggests that it registered the domain names for the purpose of selling them to Complainant for profit Florists ™ Transworld Delivery Inc v DomainSource.com a/k/a Domain Source Inc

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

modus operandi of inaction or passive holding characterized as bad faith in Telstra Corporation v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 Thus it is argued that the Respondent has registered the domain name and then sat back ™ and done

use might be inferred from passive holding of a domain name in circumstances where as in the present case there is no evidence of any possible legitimate use of the domain name by the Respondent see Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear

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

decision in Telstra “ that passive holding of a domain name can give rise to a holding of bad faith Among the circumstances in Telstra indicative of bad faith were where Complainant ™s trademark has a strong reputation and is widely known

the domain name is being held passively or as is sometimes said parked It has frequently been held by other panels that a respondent s lengthy passive holding of a disputed domain name demonstrates that the domain is not being used for a bona fide

panel to conclude that the passive holding of the domain name by the Respondent amounts to the Respondent acting in bad faith Similarly the circumstances of this case lead the panel to believe that the passive holding by the Respondent of the

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

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

with a domain name and that passive holding of a domain name permits an inference of registration and use in bad faith and Alitalia Linee Aeree Italiane S.p.A v Colour Digital D2000-1260 WIPO Nov 23 2000 To this may be added the fact that it

with a domain name and that passive holding of a domain name permits an inference of registration and use in bad faith and Alitalia Linee Aeree Italiane S.p.A v Colour Digital D2000-1260 WIPO Nov 23 2000 To this may be added the fact that it

did anything other than passively hold the domain name at issue The Panel recognizes that in appropriate circumstances passive holding of a domain name can constitute evidence of bad faith See e.g Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear

Panel also considers that the passive holding of a domain name xuxa.com can be seen as use in bad faith in particular when there is no obvious legitimate use of the domain name Therefore the Panel concludes that the Respondent has registered and is

site now and Respondent is passively holding the Domain Names which has been held not to create rights or legitimate interests in Domain Names Archipelago Holdings LLC v Creative Genius Domain Sales and Robert Aragon d/b/a/ Creative Genius

the domain names mere passive holding of the domain names constitutes use of the domain name in bad faith B Respondent Respondent contends that the term SHORE is a measuring unit which is identified or named after a discoverer or a person

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 The Panel finds Complainant satisfied Policy Paragraph 4 a iii

Mr Webb s registration and passive holding of the domain name borsig.com as well as the absence of any notice of intended use on the web site is evidence of bad faith registration and use Respondent Respondent contends he had never heard of

must consider whether the passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name by the Respondent amounts to the Respondent acting in bad faith Such passive holding has been consistently held to amount to bad faith in appropriate circumstances for