name in dispute is being held passively and such passive holding is and does support a finding of bad faith �use � See Am Home Prod Corp v Valgioglio WIPO Case No D2000-1602 Ziegenfelder Co v VMH Enter Inc WIPO Case No D2000-0039 Flor-Jon Films Inc

considers that the Respondent passive use of the Domain Name may be deemed as a bad faith behaviour as foreseen by the Policy As previously stated the website linked to the Domain Name is currently inactive Such a passive use may be considered as

finds that Respondent is passively holding the domain name which evidences a lack of rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name In the absence of a response passively holding a domain name is sufficient to establish that a respondent

for over a year Respondent s passive holding of the domain names 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

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

Panel found the respondent �s passive holding of a domain name containing a famous trademark amounted to bad faith registration and use The Panel is aware that passive holding is not one of the specifically listed bad faith grounds under the Policy

WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The passive holding is evidenced by the Respondent having not activated any site related to the Domain Names and that all the Domain Names web sites lead to the same blank page The Panel concludes that the Complainant has

address has to be regarded as passive holding of the disputed domain name It is the Complainant opinion that this constitutes bad faith use of a domain name in accordance with numerous decision rendered under UDRP proceedings B Respondent The

another purpose In addition passive holding of a domain name does not by itself even on a long range constitute evidence of use in bad faith There must be additional circumstances as for instance the efforts made by the Respondent to conceal his

that Respondent inactivity or passive holding of the domain name may prove that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith Red Bull GmbH v Harold Gutch WIPO Case No D2000-0766 eBay Inc v Sunho Hong WIPO Case No D2000-1633

of the Policy involve also a passive holding/or inaction of the domain name registration even though these provisions require additional facts It must be recalled that the circumstances listed under paragraphs 4 b i to iv of the Policy are without

domain name Furthermore the passive holding of the domain name by the Respondent amounts to the Respondent acting in bad faith for the following reasons the Complainant trademark is protected in many countries of the world The email request of a

which is not a legitimate use Passive holding of a domain name has consistently been held by administrative panels as insufficient to establish either legitimate interests or bona fide use Respondent has registered and used the contested domain

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

real owner of the domain name Passive holding and continued retention of a domain name without development is evidence of bad faith See Am Home Prod Corp supra finding that holding a domain name for 1 1/2 years without an operational web site is

28 2000 finding that merely holding an infringing domain name without active use can constitute use in bad faith DCI S.A v Link Commercial Corp D2000-1232 WIPO Dec 7 2000 concluding that the Respondent s passive holding of the domain name

WIPO Case No D2000-0003 the passive holding of a domain name may constitute use of the domain name in bad faith depending on the circumstances of the case Although the Respondent claims that it had no knowledge of the existence of Merck and its

has been engaged in passive holding of the site for over three years belies its previous statements regarding its planned use of said sugoi.com domain Said passive holding is disrupting the business of Complainant and preventing

and Use in Bad Faith The passive holding of a domain name has been found to evidence bad faith registration and use of the name As previously stated Respondent in this case is passively holding the domain name blizzardporn.com Without evidence

on February 12 2004 Such passive holding or inactivity under UDRP case law in itself allows a ruling of bad faith under Paragraph 4 b of the Policy see e.g Atlantic Recording Corporation v Paelle International WIPO Case No D2001-0065 As far as