used in bad faith as the passive holding of the disputed Domain Name fosters the aforementioned purposes B Respondent The Respondent claims that the registration was undertaken in accordance with all relevant rules and laws and the motivation

Under the Telstra analysis passive holding of a domain name can be considered as bad faith where it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the disputed domain name that would not be illegitimate Telstra

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 Policy Paragraph 4 a ii has been satisfied Registration and Use in Bad

Panels have held that the passive holding of a domain name provides evidence that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name Pharmacia & Upjohn AB v Romero D2000-1273 WIPO Nov 13 2000 finding no rights or legitimate

the Policy See Janus Int ™l Holding Co v Rademacher WIPO Case No D2002-0201 finding that the registration of a mark is prima facie evidence of validity which creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently distinctive Respondent has

It follows that Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith registration 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 passive

The Panel finds that this passive holding is not a bona fide offering of a good or service pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 c i and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 c iii See AT&T Corp v Domains by

reference to a situation of passive holding under the appearance of This site is currently Under Construction Please check back at a later time Although there is not yet an effective use of the domain name the Respondent has included references

s trademarks Respondent is passively holding the domain name which is also evidence of bad faith registration and use Respondent is opportunistically attempting to trade on the goodwill built up in Complainant marks also because the disputed

appropriate circumstances passive holding evidences bad faith use Reference is made to Pfizer Inc v Order Viagra Online WIPO Case No D2002-0366 and Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The use of the

concluded that Respondent passive holding of the domain name did not establish rights or legitimate interests Similarly Respondent s passive holding of the pirellityres.com domain name for over three years is evidence that Respondent lacks

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

in certain circumstances mere passive holding has been held to constitute use of the domain name in bad faith see Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Jupiters Limited v Aaron Hall WIPO Case No D2000-0574

on May 27 2005 and has been passively holding it for almost a year Panels have held that the passive holding of a domain name for as little as six months provides evidence that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name

Radio & Records Inc v Jucco Holdings c/o Admin Claim Number FA0603000665108 PARTIES Complainant is Radio & Records Inc Complainant represented by Stephen J Strauss of Fulwider Patton LLP 6060 Center Drive Tenth Floor Los Angeles CA 90045

Complainant ™s argument about passive holding is irrelevant nor is the Panel convinced that Respondent acted in bad faith simply by not answering a request to sell the domain names emanating from Complainant ™s consultants But a further discussion

4 a i See Janus Int ™l Holding Co v Rademacher WIPO Case No D2002-0201 finding that the registration of a mark is prima facie evidence of validity which creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently distinctive Respondent has

it was held that mere passive holding of a domain name may constitute bad faith use where the registrant has no legitimate interest in the trademarked term constituting the domain name B Respondent Respondent points out that it registered

respondent ™s inactivity or passive holding of the domain name may prove that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith The Complainant contends that in evaluating of all of the circumstances in the underlying case the

i of the Policy Nor given the passive holding that occurred during this period coupled with the Respondent ™s subsequent commercial use of the domain name can the Respondent point to any of its activities surrounding the name as constituting either