website Respondent s passive holding of the domain name does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 c i or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 c iii

alleges that Respondent s passive holding of the domain name satisfies the requirement that the domain name is being used in bad faith B Respondent Identical or Confusingly Similar Complainant s domain name policeauctions.com consists of two

domain name Respondent s passive holding of the infringing domain name is evidence that the domain name was used in bad faith fulfilling the second prong of analysis under Policy Paragraph 4 a iii Passive holding in and of itself is evidence

of a domain name may include passive holding of the domain name even if the website has not been activated Further the Complainant submits that the Respondent s failure to respond to its offer of amicable settlement Annex E Cease and Desist letter

all for the past 4 years This passive holding of a domain name can be seen as use in bad faith Telstra Corporation Ltd v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 especially when there is no obvious legitimate use of the domain name Consequently

2001 its behavior constitutes passive holding Passive holding of a domain name is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to UDRP Policy Paragraph 4 c i nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to UDRP

over two 2 years Respondent s passive holding of the oneill-surf.com domain name 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

domain name B his parking and passive holding of the domain name and C his failure to respond to communications from the Complainant s counsel The Complainant has requested transfer of the domain name B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to

Complainant contends that the passive holding of the domain name at issue by the Respondent inaction amounts to the Respondent acting in bad faith taking into consideration that the Complainant s trademark has a strong reputation and is widely

stated above Respondent has passively held the disputed domain name for nearly six years thus satisfying Policy Paragraph 4 a iii for Complainant 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

should be compared to a mere passive holding of the same domain name by the Respondent It is known that several WIPO decisions held that use in bad faith does not necessarily entail a positive action but also inaction in the presence of particular

is well established that the passive holding of a domain name supports a finding of bad faith registration and use See e.g DCI S.A v Link Commercial Corp D2000-1232 WIPO Dec 7 2000 concluding that respondent s passive holding of domain name

registration followed by passive holding when there is no way that it could be used legitimately amounts to use in bad faith Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallow WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The Complainant also recalls that use can

case of the opinion that the passive holding of the domain name by the Respondent amounts to acting in bad faith As noted above the Respondent has apparently never maintained a website presence for the disputed domain name and has never made any

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

with the domain name and that passive holding of a domain name permits an inference of registration and use in bad faith The inference of bad faith from this passive holding has not been rebutted In sum the Panelist concludes that past registration

she is in a situation of passive holding coloured by her past mis behaviour B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions Thus Respondent has failed to submit any statement She has not contested the allegations

UGG Holdings Inc and Deckers Outdoor Corporation v Paul Barclay and Barclay Holdings Inc Claim Number FA0312000217320 PARTIES Complainants are UGG Holdings Inc and Deckers Outdoor Corporation collectively Complainant represented by Paul

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