domain name was merely held passively In Telstra the Panel supported its conclusion that passive holding could be considered as evidence of bad faith use on the basis of the following factors i the Complainant �s trademark has a strong reputation

cases that extensive and mere passive holding of a registered domain name could be viewed as evidence of bad faith use see Ceyx Technologies v Ceyx.com WIPO Case No D2001-0681 Deutsche Telecom AG v Ronan Bailread WIPO Case No D2003-0893 wherein

Panel finds that Respondent s passive holding of the domain name constitutes evidence of bad faith use and registration pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See Cruzeiro Licenciamentos Ltda v Sallen D2000-0715 WIPO Sept 6 2000 finding that mere

concluding that 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

that Respondent s current passive holding or non-use of the domain names PCAOB.ORG and PCAOBONLINE.COM constitutes bad faith B Respondent Respondent is Karl Nagel d/b/a PCAOB Online a financial information services company established on July

Moreover the use including passive holding of the disputed domain name may clearly disrupt the business of the Complainant e.g through confusion of Internet users wanting to make reservations via the disputed domain name e.g ACCOR v Jose Manuel

where Respondent merely passively held the domain name Therefore Complainant has established Policy Paragraph 4 a ii Registration and Use in Bad Faith In conjunction with the above passive holding has also been found to evidence bad faith

faith can include the mere passive holding of a domain name In Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No.D2000-0003 the first domain name dispute proceeding which established this principle the Panel stated that the concept

by his inaction that is his passive holding of the domain name jvc-america.com to the exclusion of Complainant the owner of the JVC mark In the now famous Telstra case it was firmly established that inaction and passive holding of a domain name

Coming soon � and argues that passive holding of a domain name does not constitute a bone fide offering of goods and services Following the Complainant �s first cease and desist letter the Respondent �s website offered financial services The

exclude this element A passive holding of a domain name may satisfy the requirement of paragraph 4 a iii that the domain name is being used in bad faith when considered in conjunction with other circumstances Advanced Comfort Inc v Frank

use is referred to as passive holding Passively holding a domain name does not evidence rights or legitimate interests in a domain name pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 a ii Therefore without a rebuttal to Complainant s assertion that

the domain name and alleges passive holding as an indication of bad faith Complainant has brought numerous prior administrative domain name actions based on the LOAN MART mark and indeed prevailed against the instant domain name in Dollar

extensive non-use and mere passive holding of a registered domain name could be viewed as evidence of bad faith use see Internet Billing Company Ltd v Fundu Technologies NAF Claim No FA 95547 passive holding for 28 months Ceyx Technologies v

however well established that passive holding can in certain circumstances be evidence of use in bad faith See e.g Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 In the Panel �s view passive holding of the Domain Names

case all regarding a mere passive holding where the domain name does not resolve in an active web page Complainants state that in the present case the Domain Name is active since a web page advertising Internet registration services so called

concluding that respondent s passive holding of the domain name satisfies the requirement of Paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy Caravan Club v Mrgsale FA 95314 Nat Arb Forum Aug 30 2000 finding that respondent made no use of the domain name or

not only should his �passive holding � of the domain name be regarded as sufficient in light of the decision Telstra Corporation Ltd v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and of many subsequent decisions but certainly such passive holding

See Samsonite Corp v Colony Holding FA 94313 Nat Arb Forum Apr 17 2000 finding that evidence of bad faith includes actual or constructive knowledge of a commonly known mark at the time of registration see also Digi Int l v DDI Sys FA 124506 Nat

is therefore whether the passive holding of the Domain Name can be considered to be registration and use in bad faith taking into account all circumstances of the present case The four criteria set forth in the Policy paragraph 4 b are