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 v Brown D2000-0004 WIPO Feb 16 2000 holding that Respondent s failure to develop its website in a two 2 year

the trademarked name Moreover passive holding of a domain name is not evidence of 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 Paragraph 4 c iii See

to an active website Such passive holding constitutes bad faith use and registration under Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See Phat Fashions v Kruger FA 96193 Nat Arb Forum Dec 29 2000 finding bad faith under Policy Paragraph 4 a iii even though

the record The Respondent �s passive holding of the domain name for nearly a year following its registration is problematic Under certain circumstances a respondent �s passive holding of a domain name can be indicative of bad faith The leading

domain name amounts to passive holding and is evidence of 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 Respondent s passive holding of the

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

regarding the Respondent �s passive holding of the Domain Name satisfies the requirements foreseen by the Policy Consequently the Panel considers that the Complainant has proved that the Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith

and either using or passively holding domain names that contained Complainant s protected marks The facts establish with certainty that Respondent had actual notice of Complainant s marks Complainant s marks have immense international

decisions and that LaPorte Holdings Inc is also an alter ego for Hiroshiy Inc./ Henry Chan Krome Studios Pty Ltd v LaPorte Holdings Inc WIPO Case No D2004-0707 Société des Hôtels Méridien v LaPorte Holdings Inc WIPO Case No.D2004-0849 In

name for any purpose Such passive holding 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 finding bad faith under Policy Paragraph 4 a iii even though

circumstances a respondent �s passive holding of a domain name can be indicative of bad faith The leading decision in this area is Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Under the Telstra analysis passive holding

Name The Respondent is merely passively holding the Domain Name without any explanation The Respondent has not in any way reacted to the e-mail sent by the trademark agent of Complainant By passively holding the Domain Name without any explanation

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

note that not every kind of passive holding may be found to be �use in bad faith � of the domain name Otherwise the necessity to prove that a domain name was actually used would be illusory The most obvious examples of passive holding which fall

claims that Respondent has passively held the statefarms.biz domain name This is evidence of Respondent s 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

it eight months ago Such passive holding 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 finding bad faith under Policy Paragraph 4 a iii even though

the Complainant relies on passive holding / warehousing of the domain name which has never been used in relation to an active website A simple search for the word BENDON on a variety of search engines would readily have alerted the Respondents

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

to another website The passive holding of domain names may constitute use in bad faith in light of the facts present in a specific case In the case at hand the Panel has taken into consideration the following circumstances altogether i

finds that Respondent has passively held the domain name in bad faith See DCI S.A v Link Commercial Corp D2000-1232 WIPO Dec 7 2000 concluding that Respondent s passive holding of the domain name satisfies the requirement of Paragraph 4 a iii