Case No. D2000-0003 that passive holding of a domain name can constitute bad faith WIPO Case No. D2000-0021 confirms that if the domain name is used at any time following registration in bad faith this is sufficient to establish bad faith use

by the registrar qualifies as passive holding See State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co v DuBois FA 339599 Nat Arb Forum Dec 1 2004 finding that the respondent was passively holding a domain name because the domain name merely resolved to the registrar s web

that the Respondent �s passive holding of the Domain Name is evidence of bad faith registration and use The Respondent contends that it took him time to develop the website and that the period of inaction ie passive holding cannot reasonably

LOAN MART mark Respondent s passive holding does not constitute a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy Paragraph Paragraph 4 c i and iii See Melbourne IT Ltd

also alleges that Respondent passive holding of the elizabethtaylor.com domain name is evidence of bad faith and that the elizabethtaylor.com domain name is so obviously connected with Complainant that use and registration by Respondent who has no

The Panel finds that such passive holding indicates bad faith registration and use pursuant to 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 holding of the domain

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 Respondent s passive holding of the domain name

in bad faith It asserts that passive holding of the domain name may constitute bad faith It also asserts that Respondent �contacted the Complainant offering to sell the domain name to the Complainant seemingly for a price astronomically beyond the

panel decisions Respondent �s passive holding of the disputed domain name in itself constitutes bad faith use under the Policy xi Respondent �s utter indifference to counsel for Complainant �s notice of infringement weighs in favor of a finding of

asserts that �Respondent is passively holding many of the Domain Names because those Domain Names resolve to parked web pages � and according to the Complainant �a respondent �s passive holding of a domain name can amount to the respondent acting

In addition the current passive holding of the Domain Name which presently does not correspond or redirect to any web site confirms the Respondent �s bad faith use of the Domain Name Since Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows

active website and is merely passively held and displays pictures of the home pages of the websites into which the disputed Domain Names resolve Furthermore he contends that it is constant jurisprudence of UDRP panels to consider passive holding

4 of the Policy Respondent �s passive holding of the disputed domain name when considered with other evidence can establish the bad faith of the Respondent See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 February 18

the domain name Respondent s passive holding of the mercedesbenzpromo.net domain name which is confusingly similar to Complainant s MERCEDES BENZ mark evidences bad faith See Compagnie Generale des Matieres Nucleaires v Greenpeace Int l D2001-0376

having been made Respondent s passive holding of the names demonstrates its lack of rights or interests therein See Bloomberg L.P v Sandhu FA 96261 Nat Arb Forum Feb 12 2001 finding that no rights or legitimate interest can be found when Respondent

the Domain Name to the UK2 holding page this cannot in the circumstances prevent a finding of bad faith use The non-exhaustive list of circumstances which are indicative of bad faith registration and use clearly envisage inactivity or a passive

over three years constitutes passive holding and is evidence of bad faith registration and use See Mondich & Am Vintage Wine Biscuits Inc v Brown D2000-0004 WIPO Feb 16 2000 holding that Respondent s failure to develop its website in a two year

evidenced also represents passive holding constituting use in bad faith as interpreted by the UDRP panels since the time of the TELSTRA case Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 thus fulfilling the

of the Policy involve also a passive holding/or inaction of the domain name registration even though these provisions require additional facts It should be recalled that the circumstances listed under paragraphs 4 b i to iv of the Policy are

website and to the present passive holding of the domain name B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant �s contentions and is in default Therefore the Panel shall decide this proceeding on the basis of Complainant �s