learned panelist found that passive holding can in certain circumstances constitute use in bad faith but that such circumstances cannot be identified in the abstract in considering whether a passive holding of a domain name following a bad faith

for well over three years is passive holding of a domain name and supports findings that Respondent s registration and use was done in bad faith pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See Mondich & Am Vintage Wine Biscuits Inc v Brown D2000-0004

it is submitted that the passive holding of a domain name can constitute bad faith in particular where the domain name is a mere misspelling of an internationally famous trademark In addition the Complainant contends that the failure of the

in cui la detenzione passiva passive holding di un nome a dominio è stata riconosciuta come elemento da cui dedurre la malafede del titolare del nome a dominio La Ricorrente sostiene che il Resistente abbia registrato il nome a dominio con il

in Bad Faith Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name which is evidence of bad faith registration and use See DCI S.A v Link Commercial Corp D2000-1232 WIPO Dec 7 2000 concluding that Respondent s passive holding of the domain

appropriate thus Respondent s passive holding also evidences bad faith registration and use See Caravan Club v Mrgsale FA 95314 Nat Arb Forum Aug 30 2000 finding that Respondent made no use of the domain name or website that connects with the

domain names equates to passive holding and thus bad faith use of these two domain names Given the fact that Respondent attempted to sell the registrations for the crest-hummer.com and hummerofnashville.com domain names the Panel finds that

provided a basis for a holding that it engaged in conduct that could constitute bad faith registration and use Respondent expressed an intent to engage in no activity at the site Passive holding to prevent one with rights from using a name

same Respondent s current passive holding or non-use of the domain name constitutes bad faith See Telstra Corp v Nuclear Marshmallows D2000-0003 WIPO Feb 18 2000 finding passive holding constitutes bad faith use of the domain name see also

has held the Domain Name passively and failed throughout this time span to set up a webpage or to generate genuine e-mail traffic over the Domain Name reveals that there was no real intention of use A significant number of WIPO rulings have

in bad faith Respondent s passive holding of the disputed Domain Name does not constitute any rights of the Respondent in the Domain Name frezza.com on the contrary this passive holding infers bad faith use and registration see Telstra

finds that the Respondent s passive holding of a domain name confusingly similar to the Complainant s trademarks is enough to constitute bad faith registration and use see Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003

The domain name has been held passively by Respondent and not used for any purpose since it was registered Such passive holding of a domain name is evidence of bad faith see Quanta S.p.A v François Kyan WIPO Case No D2003-0158 Sanrio Company Ltd

which characterizes a holding of the domain name by Respondent at the very border between a passive and an active holding since by typing www.perlier.info one does not receive an error page but is directed to a parking page of the Registrar

France v Van Wijk & Mesker Holding BV Litige OMPI No D2002-0028 concernant airfrance-delta.com airfrance-delta.net Chevron Corporation v Young Wook Kim Litige OMPI No D2001-1142 concernant chevron-texaco.com Audi AG v Hans Wolff Litige OMPI No

element It is true that 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 WIPO Case No D2002-0762

he refers to as four years of passive holding which was in fact re-directional use for some of that time and to the Respondent s sudden and unexplained changes in use when it knew that a complaint might be filed Indeed the timing and nature of

domain name has been held passively by Respondent Miller and not used for any purpose since it was registered The website consists of an otherwise blank page that states as it has for at least the past eight months Coming soon see Annex E of

that the Respondent s passive holding of some of the most well-known service marks in world retailing for over four 4 years is tantamount to bad faith based on the cases the Complainant cites see primarily Telstra Corporation Limited v

name in April 2002 Such passive holding is a prima facie case of bad faith under the Policy Thus the Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See Clerical Med Inv Group