is important to ask Can the passive holding of a domain name amount to use in bad faith There are ample administrative panel decisions 1 which suggest that the lack of active use of a domain name does not per se prevent the finding of use in bad

alter the position even the passive holding of a domain name can amount to bad faith use Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has proved the paragraph 4 a iii

the Panel finds that the passive holding of the domain names is sufficient to satisfy the third and last requirement in paragraph 4 a of the Policy as this rule has been understood in previous WIPO-cases notably Telstra Corporation Limited v

for any purpose Respondent s passive holding of the domain name 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 name under Policy Paragraph 4 c iv

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 Respondent s passive holding of the domain

Complainant s mark and has passively held the domain name since the time of registration in 2002 The Panel finds that this failure to use the domain name that is identical to Complainant s mark constitutes passive holding and is not a bona fide

DECISION Paul Owens v LaPorte Holdings Inc Claim Number FA0501000406994 PARTIES Complainant is Paul Owens Complainant 5655 Lori Lane Beaumont TX 77713 Respondent is LaPorte Holdings Inc Respondent ATTN testpreview.com c/o Nameking Inc 2202 S

sic FA-96483 finding passive holding of domain name indicative of bad faith use and ii Respondent s registration and use of the disputed domain names sic is made with the knowledge of the fame of Complainant s STARWOOD trademark which is

name resolves and is merely holding the domain name passively while blatantly attempting to coerce the Complainant into paying an exorbitant amount for the domain name which the Respondent acknowledges is identical to the Complainant ™s mark The

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

the disputed domain name by passively holding the name for over five years Prior Panels have found that that merely holding an infringing domain name without active use can constitute use in bad faith See DCI S.A v Link Commercial Corp D2000-1232

positive actions so that the passive holding of a domain name can constitute also another ground of use of a domain names in bad faith see Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marsmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and eBay Inc v Sunho Hong WIPO

may be considered to be passive holding see for example Telstra Corporation v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case D2000-0003 and Air Austral v WWW Enterprise Inc WIPO Case D2004-0765 5.16 It is very difficult to imagine any use of the disputed

contends that this is a passive holding of the Domain Name and constitutes bad faith of the kind articulated in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 The Complainant goes on to assert that the Respondent

domain name Respondent is now passively holding the domain name 16 Such passive holding is further evidence of a lack of any rights or legitimate interests Respondent could have in the domain name 17 Respondent s domain name resolves to a parked Go

was registered Respondent s passive holding of a domain name that is 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

with the domain name and that passive holding of a domain name permits an inference of registration and use in bad faith see also Mondich & Am Vintage Wine Biscuits Inc v Brown D2000-0004 WIPO Feb 16 2000 holding that Respondent s failure to

faith registration and use Passive holding of domain names corresponding to another ™s mark may support a finding of bad faith use See Reliant Energy v Robert Wiggins WIPO Case No. D2001-0769 citing Lake Las Vegas Joint Venture v M Bridges and

to hold the domain name passively without using it A wish to passively hold a domain name corresponding to a world famous trademark such as Complainant ™s mark GOOGLE is not in the opinion of the Panel a legitimate noncommercial or fair use

with Complainant Such passive holding of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a famous mark equates to bad faith use and registration under Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See Phat Fashions v Kruger FA 96193 Nat Arb Forum Dec 29 2000