with the domain name and that passive holding of a domain name permits an inference of registration and use in bad faith see also Clerical Med Inv Group Ltd v Clericalmedical.com D2000-1228 WIPO Nov 28 2000 finding that merely holding an infringing

Panel finds that Respondent s passive holding of the ritzcrafthomes.com domain name registration does not constitute either a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 c i or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use

that the respondent s passive holding of the domain name satisfies the requirement of Paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy see also Clerical Med Inv Group Ltd v Clericalmedical.com D2000-1228 WIPO Nov 28 2000 finding that merely holding an

name such nonuse constitutes passive holding The Panel finds that the passive holding of a domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy 4 a iii See DCI S.A v Link Commercial Corp D2000-1232 WIPO Dec 7 2000 concluding

its own trademarks The passive holding of a domain name results in an intended active disruption of the Complainant �s business interest and activities The Claimant therefore concludes that the passive holding of a domain name by the

under these conditions even passive use of a disputed domain name is considered to be in bad faith E.g Group Kaitu LLC Darkside Prods Inc v Group Kaitu LLC a/k/a Manila Indus Inc D2005-1087 WIPO January 6 2006 citing Telstra Corp Ltd v Nuclear

being undertaken Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name for seven 7 years provides evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy Paragraph4 a iii See DCI S.A v Link Commercial Corp D2000-1232 WIPO Dec 7 2000 concluding

panel decisions that address passive holding it cannot be assumed that the Respondent was aware of an established mark to target for future exploitation The Domain Name was registered in 1998 while the mark was first used in 2005 and the

with the domain name and that passive holding of a domain name permits an inference of registration and use in bad faith 3 BCR Inc v None FA 615308 Nat Arb Forum Feb 14 2006 T he passive holding of a valuable trademark constitutes bad faith This

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

period constitutes actionable passive holding indicative of bad faith under the Policy Various panels have held that passive holding coupled with a respondent �s knowledge of trademark rights of a complainant in the name being so held � as is

It follows that Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain names constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See DCI S.A v Link Commercial Corp D2000-1232 WIPO Dec 7 2000 concluding that the respondent s

for the argument that passive holding is enough to establish bad faith registration and use such as Walsin Technology Corp v Walsin Net Technology Inc Nat Arb Forum FA0010000095766 December 1995 Complainant fails to note the distinguishing

that Respondent has been passively holding the disputed domain name since registering it in March 1999 In Bloomberg L.P v SC Media Services and Information SRL FA 296583 Nat Arb Forum Sept 2 2004 a respondent registered but was not using the

that a � r espondent �s passive holding amounts to bad faith � Telstra supra stating that �paragraph 4 b recognizes that inaction e.g passive holding in relation to a domain name registration can in certain circumstances constitute a domain

circumstances the mere passive holding of a domain name may be held to constitute a use of the domain name in bad faith cf Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 In the case at hand the Panel considers

the highest price achievable Passive Holding To address firstly the question of passive domain name holding on the evidence before this Panel there was active use of the domain name until 1997 The use was by Ms Van Essen s company and it is common

is under construction even � passive holding � may represent a registration and use in bad faith under particular circumstances which are as follows a The Complainant �s trademark has a strong reputation and is widely known b The Respondent has

case is a case of �passive holding � which means that the Respondent does not use the Domain Name at issue The panel in the previous WIPO UDRP decision Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 established that

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 and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the