name The Panel finds that passive holding of a domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use on the part of Respondent See DCI S.A v Link Commercial Corp D2000-1232 WIPO Dec 7 2000 concluding that Respondent s passive holding of the

types involve both active and passive use In the instant case Respondent is passively using the disputed domain name because it has failed to use the name in connection with a developed website for over two years Passive holding of a domain name

Respondent �s inactivity or passive holding of the domain name may prove that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith � Atlantic Recording Corporation v Paelle International WIPO Case No D2001-0065 Furthermore the

the Panel decided that passive holding of a domain name which does not resolve to a website could satisfy the requirement that the domain name is �used in bad faith � B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant �s

that the Respondent �s passive holding under the above circumstances qualify as using the domain name in bad faith in relation to Paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy 7 Decision For all the foregoing reasons in accordance with Paragraphs 4 i of

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 Alitalia Linee Aeree Italiane S.p.A v Colour Digital

Respondent by virtue of its passive holding of the Domain name amounts to the Domain name being used in bad faith Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallow WIPO Case No D2000-0003 C Respondent has attempted to create some sort of

from Respondent s alleged passive holding of the domain name However Respondent is not passively holding the disputed domain It is using the disputed domain in connection with an affiliate program operated by Google.com which provides

with the domain name and that passive holding of a domain name permits an inference of registration and use in bad faith see also Compagnie Generale des Matieres Nucleaires v Greenpeace Int l D2001-0376 WIPO May 14 2001 holding that despite

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 DCI S.A v Link Commercial Corp D2000-1232 WIPO Dec 7 2000

Sept 6 2000 finding that mere passive holding of a domain name can qualify as bad faith if the domain name owner s conduct creates the impression that the name is for sale see also Mondich v Brown D2000-0004 WIPO Feb 16 2000 holding that Respondent

through that name constitutes passive holding Quite a few panels including this one have held that under appropriate circumstances passive holding evidences bad faith use Such circumstances when viewed in their totality exist here See e.g Pfizer

Sept 6 2000 finding that mere passive holding of a domain name can qualify as bad faith if the domain name owner s conduct creates the impression that the name is for sale see also Mondich & Am Vintage Wine Biscuits Inc v Brown D2000-0004 WIPO Feb

reputation of the Complainant Passive holding of the domain name does also constitute bad faith The fact that the domain name registered is a typo-squatting case constitutes in itself bad faith registration and use Registration without

respondent �s inaction and passive holding of the website over the past three years was evidence of both illegitimate purpose and bad faith and thus ordered the transfer of the domain name On the balance of the evidence this Panel accordingly

use in bad faith Thus the passive holding of a domain name can amount to bad faith use Relevant circumstances include where the Complainant �s trademarks has a strong reputation and is widely known where it is not possible to conceive of any

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 In that context it has been convincingly argued in Telstra

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

the Respondent engages in passive holding of the domain name bolibompa.tv The fact that a Respondent engage in passive holding of a domain name can in certain circumstances be evidence of use in bad faith In Telstra Corporation Limited v

name in bad faith through its passive holding of the name 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 of the Policy see