in certain circumstances mere passive holding has been held to constitute use of the domain name in bad faith see Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Jupiters Limited v Aaron Hall WIPO Case No D2000-0574 The

is not a bona fide use Passive holding of a domain name that is confusingly similar to another 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 Respondent current

for further development such passive holding does not confer a legitimate interest on Respondent Respondent s failure to make legitimate use of the domain name during the four years transpiring since registration belies any argument that the

the Disputed Domain Name Such passive holding can be bad faith use when other circumstances are present for example when it appears that the Respondent has warehoused thousands of names that correspond to the trademarks of others By holding the

circumstances of inaction passive holding other than those identified in paragraphs 4 b i ii and iii can constitute a domain name being used in bad faith This question cannot be answered in the abstract the question can only be answered in

2000 Furthermore Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain names is evidence of Respondent s bad faith Respondent s only use of the casinomoneygram.com domain name was illegitimate and it has made no use of that domain name or the

Respondent s registration and passive holding of the disputed domain name would constitute bad faith the Panel finds that Respondent s passive holding of the dbtel.com domain name alone is sufficient evidence to find bad faith registration and use

which Panels have held that passive holding of a domain name no use at all amounts to bad faith use See e.g Stam v Cohen D2000-1061 WIPO Nov 4 2000 Garnett v Trap Block Techs FA 128073 Nat Arb Forum Nov 21 2002 Albrecht v Natale FA 95465 Nat Arb

faith in that inaction e.g passive holding in relation to a domain name registration can constitute a domain name being used in bad faith 5.6 Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred to Complainant B Respondent 5.7 Respondent has

have held that non-use or passive use is evidence of bad faith particularly over a long period of time Georgia Gulf Corporation v The Ross Group WIPO Case No D2000-0218 The Respondent has registered multiple domain names that are registered

with the Respondent s passive holding of the Domain Name does fall within the Panel s criteria and reasoning in the Telstra case as satisfying the use in bad faith requirement The Complainant requests in accordance with Paragraph 4 i of the

Forum Nov 4 2002 noting that holding a domain name for less than a year is normally insufficient to find passive holding This is not an area where a tariff type approach is appropriate Each case depends on its facts Here there is no evidence to

invokes the doctrine of passive holding and argues that even if Respondent has not caused the disputed domain name to resolve to any website there can be no doubt that Respondent has used the contested domain name in bad faith To that end

goodwill of Complainant 4 sic Passive Holding of the domain name Respondent registered the domain name on March 10 1999 and upon information and belief it has never used it since then Holding a domain name for such a long period almost 5 years

This is a classic case of passive holding as outlined in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 7 Decision For all the foregoing reasons in accordance with paragraphs 4 i of the Policy and 15 of the Rules

Nat Arb Forum July 31 2000 holding that Respondent s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of Complainant to be deemed true see also Charles Jourdan Holding AG v AAIM D2000-0403 WIPO June 27 2000 finding

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

Future Steel Holdings Ltd v Kim Majercik Claim Number FA0401000224962 PARTIES Complainant is Future Steel Holdings Ltd Brampton Canada Complainant represented by Olivia Maria Baratta of Kilpatrick Stockton LLP 1100 Peachtree St N.E Suite

Future Steel Holdings Ltd v Kim Majercik Claim Number FA0401000224964 PARTIES Complainant is Future Steel Holdings Ltd Brampton Canada Complainant represented by Olivia Maria Baratta of Kilpatrick Stockton LLP 1100 Peachtree St N.E Suite

concludes that Respondent is passively holding the name which without controvertible evidence indicates 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