in this case the �passive holding � namely detaining the domain name without using it infers bad faith As established in a number of prior cases the concept of �bad faith use � in paragraph 4 b of the Policy includes not only positive action

as a typosquatter � the passive holding of the disputed domain names � the declared intent of the Respondent revealed in other cases of typosquatting where the Respondent was involved in the same capacity to earn money from registering domain

websites 23 Respondent s passive holding of the unused disputed domain names is evidence of bad faith registration and use because those domain names are confusingly similar to the famous YAHOO mark and because there is no foreseeable use of

The Respondent �s non-use or passive holding of the Domain Name does not amount to bad faith The Panel must study the specific facts of each case to determine whether bad faith can be established despite passive holding A finding of reverse domain

WIPO Case No D2000-0226 Passive holding As regards the non-use of the domain name by Respondent the Panel agrees with Complainant �s allegation that in this case the �passive holding � namely detaining the domain name without using it for

circumstances including such passive holding � can amount to bad faith registration and use In Telstra Case the Panelist identified five relevant issues summarized as i strength of trademark �s reputation ii no evidence by Respondent of actual or

which is evidence that it is passively holding the domain name The Panel concludes that this is evdence 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

as a domain name and passively holding the domain name constitutes a registration and a continued use in bad faith of that domain name 7 Decision 7.1 The Panel decides that the domain name blue-viagra.com is confusingly similar to the

to now argue that the passive holding of the site resulting from the removal of the adult material is evidence of bad faith Further Respondent adds i n order to establish bad faith registration based on passive holding the trademark owner

and therefore Respondent has passively held the domain name Passive holding of a domain name identical to another s mark may be evidence that the registrant registered and used the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See

with an active website and passive holding � is not intrinsically offensive But there are cases where taking all the circumstances together passive holding � can amount to bad faith registration and use The Panelist in Telstra identified on five

to an active website However passive holding of a domain name that is confusingly similar to another �s trademark as is the case here is not a bona fide use Acu-Sort Systems Inc v Acu-Sort Inc NAF Claim No FA164568 August 7  2003 7 Decision For

that the domain name is being passively held does not negate its �use � for purposes of the Policy The passive holding of a domain name has been found indicative of �bad faith � by a number of other panels See e.g Mondich & American Vintage Wine

seeking comments constitutes passive holding of an infringing domain name The Panel determines that Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See

and the Respondent �s passive holding of the domain name subsequent to the commencement of this proceeding to be indicative of bad faith registration and use of the domain name 4 Paragraph 4 b iv seems to contemplate that the website to

name cannot be said to be a passive holder of that name It follows then that even though Respondent does not have a website associated with the same name it cannot be accused of passive holding of the name in bad faith In addition to the

This is a classic case of passive holding as outlined in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Should Respondent be required to relinquish the disputed domain names in the absence of its explicit use of them

 2000 Further the passive holding what Complainant refers to as �parking � of domain names is also evidence of the requisite �bad faith � See Telstra 7 Decision For all the foregoing reasons in accordance with paragraphs 4 i 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 DCI S.A v Link Commercial Corp D2000-1232 WIPO Dec 7 2000 concluding that Respondent s passive holding of the domain

name constitutes a mere passive holding with no bona fide offering of goods or services and the Respondent is not known by the name �todomail � and therefore has no legitimate rights or interests in the domain name The Respondent �s mere