is in the business of passive holding/cybersquatting on valuable domain names for resale The series of emails from early June 2005 at Complaint Annex 8 show the Respondent intended to sell the disputed domain name to the Complainant for

Film U.S.A Inc v LaPorte Holdings WIPO Case No D2004-0971 fujifilm.com Société Française du Radiotéléphone SFR v LaPorte Holdings WIPO Case No D2004-0926 cegetl.net Consitex S.A Lanificio Ermenegildo Zegna & Figli S.p.A Ermenegildo Zegna

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

presented here the passive holding of the domain name does not amount to use of the domain name in bad faith Passive holding of a domain name neither precludes nor compels a finding of bad faith Consistent with the consensus view on this

Pageants Respondent �s passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith use under the Policy see Telstra Corp Ltd v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 February 18  2000 Respondent maintains the disputed domain

with the domain name and that passive holding of a domain name permits an inference of registration and use in bad faith Furthermore Respondent registered the broadcomblog.com domain name with actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant s

case what circumstances of passive holding other than those identified in paragraphs 4 b i iii of the Policy can constitute that the domain name is being used by the Respondent in bad faith The Panel considers that the sum of the following

names for sale Respondent s passive holding of the advantacorp.com is further evidence of bad faith use and registration for purposes of Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See DCI S.A v Link Commercial Corp D2000-1232 WIPO Dec 7 2000 concluding that the

Case No D2000-1256 concluding passive holding of domain name adopting name of famous journalist to be in bad faith Isabelle Adjani v Second Orbit Communications Inc WIPO Case No D2000-0867 concluding passive holding of domain name adopting name of

proof of bad faith was mere passive holding of a domain name can qualify as bad faith if the domain name owner conduct creates the impression that the name is for sale The Panel finds that such an impression is clearly created by Respondent s

Respondent s current passive holding of the disputed domain name provides additional evidence of bad faith use and registration under Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See DCI S.A v Link Commercial Corp D2000-1232 WIPO Dec 7 2000 concluding that

by countless UDRP decisions passive holding of a domain name with knowledge that the domain name infringes on another party �s trademark rights is evidence of bad faith registration and use See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows

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

can in fact be inferred by passive holding of a domain name The case most commonly cited with regard to passive bad faith use is that of Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 where the panel agreed to

faith registration and use by passive holding of a domain name under the principles discussed in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The Panel concludes that the Complainant has failed to prove this part of

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

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

s service marks Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain names is also evidence of bad faith registration and use B Respondent The scope of an ICANN UDRP proceeding is extremely narrow It only targets abusive cybersquatting and nothing

case what circumstances of passive holding other than those identified in paragraphs 4 b I iii of the Policy can constitute that the domain name is being used by the Respondent in bad faith The Panelist considers that the sum of the following

show that the Respondent �s passive holding amounts to acting in bad faith � The Panel has now to consider whether in the circumstances of this particular Complaint the passive holding of the domain name by the Respondent amounts to the