this case as one of �passive holding � In this regard the Panel refers to the �WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions � The WIPO Overview presents the consensus view in WIPO decisions on the issue of passive holding as

the Respondent engages in passive holding of the domain name at issue The fact that a respondent engages in passive holding of a domain name can in certain circumstances be evidence of use in bad faith see e.g Telstra Corporation Limited v

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 or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy

was initiated Respondent s passive holding of domain names confusingly similar to Complainant s mark evidences bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See Telstra Corp v Nuclear Marshmallows D2000-0003 WIPO Feb 18

Complaint Respondent has been passively holding the disputed domain name because the domain name does not resolve to an active website The Panel accepts this assertion as true Passively holding a domain name does not evidence rights or legitimate

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

Respondent has engaged in passive holding which evidences that Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith under Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See Mondich & Am Vintage Wine Biscuits Inc v Brown D2000-0004 WIPO Feb 16 2000 holding

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 bad faith because of the passive holding of the domain names Moreover Complainant claims that Respondent �s registration of the domain names at issue was primarily for the purpose of gaining business benefits resulting from the confusion

is established The improper holding of a domain name one was hired by another to register would also be sufficient to establish bad faith use Apart and in addition from this specific factual assertion Complainant maintains that Respondent �s

finds that Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name because the domain name resolves to a placeholder site that merely states dancingferret.com is under construction Respondent has not asserted any preparations to use the

of the website Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name does not use the domain name for email does not use the domain name for e-commerce has not established a web site and uses the domain name only to link to Go Daddy Software

Furthermore Respondent �s passive holding of the domain name globosat.com constitutes bad faith registration and use of the domain name There are several decisions establishing that �non-action � or �lack of action � constitute use in bad faith

website services Respondent s passive holding of a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant s mark evidences bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See Telstra Corp v Nuclear Marshmallows D2000-0003 WIPO Feb 18

for any purpose Respondent s passive holding of the domain names does not represent a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy Paragraph 4 c ii or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain names under Policy Paragraph 4 c iv

non-use constitutes passive holding and as such is neither a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy Paragraph4 c i nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy Paragraph4 c iii

only positive action but also passive holding see the landmark case Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 In view of the above the Panel finds that the Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name in bad

be recalled that the mere passive holding can constitute justified cause of bad faith in the registration as well as in the use of the domain name In fact in a multitude of cases it has been ruled that the passive holding of a domain name

for this period constitutes passive holding and is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See Clerical Med Inv Group Ltd v Clericalmedical.com D2000-1228 WIPO Nov 28 2000 finding that merely holding an

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