where Respondent merely passively held the domain name Panel finds that the passive holding of the domain name is an indication that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the domain name Moreover Panel is inclined to

not consider Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name as evidence of a bona fide offering of goods or services Similarly Respondent s passive holding of this infringing domain name cannot be considered to be a legitimate

Complainant s allegation of passive holding as set forth in the landmark decision Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and convincingly proved by the Complainant also as far as the relevant circumstances are

Panel finds that Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain names is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 c ii nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 c iv See

in bad faith followed by a passive holding of a domain name can amount to use in bad faith when there it appears that there is no way in which such name could ever be used legitimately in relation to a business or offering of goods or services

s trademarks Complainant passively held the Domain Name for more than a year It is well established that the passive holding of a domain name may constitute use in bad faith WIPO Case No D2000-0003 telstra.org Therefore the Panel finds that

law has established that a passive holding of a domain name may on its own be sufficient to constitute bad faith registration and use taking into account the overall context of the Respondent s behavior WIPO Case No D2000-0003 WIPO Case No

asserts that Respondent has passively held the infospacehk.com domain name because the disputed domain name does not resolve to a developed website Passive holding of a domain name that infringes on another s right to a mark is evidence of bad

such as these Respondent s passive holding of a domain name that so closely mirrors Complainant s mark amounts to bad faith use of the domain name which fulfills the second prong of bad faith analysis under Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See Phat

concluding that Respondent s passive holding of the domain name satisfies the requirement of Paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy see also Mondich v Brown D2000-0004 WIPO Feb 16 2000 holding that Respondent s failure to develop its website in a two

name commonly referred to as passive holding can itself be evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See Telstra Corp v Nuclear Marshmallows D2000-0003 WIPO Feb 18 2000 finding that it is possible in certain

2000 finding bad faith from passive holding where complainant s mark was famous respondent had not made good faith use of the mark and respondent provided false contact information Nike Inc v Bestinfo WIPO Case No D2002-0543 September 8 2002

18 months which constitutes passive holding Passive holding of a domain name is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See Clerical Med Inv Group Ltd v Clericalmedical.com D2000-1228 WIPO Nov 28 2000 finding that merely

that in this case the passive holding namely detaining the domain name without using it infers bad faith As established in a number of prior cases the concept of bad faith use in paragraph 4 b of the Policy includes not only positive action

that in this case the passive holding namely detaining the domain name without using it infers bad faith As established in a number of prior cases the concept of bad faith use in paragraph 4 b of the Policy includes not only positive action

bad faith Hence Respondent s passive holding of a domain name without putting it to any use will have to be considered in conjunction with the other circumstances of the case The question is whether an assessment of the totality of the case

Panel finds that Respondent s passive holding of its domain name registration also fails to evidence rights or legitimate interests in the domain name pursuant to Policy Paragraph Paragraph 4 c i and iii See Boeing Co v Bressi D2000-1164 WIPO Oct

and finds that Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name Thus the provisions of Policy Paragraph Paragraph 4 c ii

examples recognize that a passive holding of a domain name registration can in certain circumstances constitute using the domain name in bad faith The concept of a domain name being used in bad faith is not limited to positive action Telstra

identical Moreover the passive holding of the bellsouthsecuritysystems.com domain name for such a long time indicates that Respondent s clear intention was to disrupt the Complainant s business pursuant to paragraph 4 b iii under the Policy