Inaction in the form of a passive holding of a domain name can amount to bad faith use depending upon the facts of the case Examples of circumstances indicating such bad faith can include the fact that the Complainant s trademark has a strong

resolve to an active website Passively holding a domain name confusingly similar to a registered trademark holder s mark is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See Hewlett-Packard Co v Martineau FA 95359 Nat

other on-line presence Such passive holding does not constitute a legitimate fair use of the domain name as has been found in a number decisions of earlier WIPO Panels to which Complainant makes reference Furthermore according to Complainant

of confusion Respondent s passive holding of the collectionproof.biz domain name amounts to bad faith use and registration of this domain name See Telstra Corp v Nuclear Marshmallows D2000-0003 WIPO Feb 18 2000 finding that it is possible in

circumstances Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain names evidence bad faith use and registration See Telstra Corp v Nuclear Marshmallows D2000-0003 WIPO Feb 18 2000 finding that it is possible in certain circumstances for

with the domain name and that passive holding of a domain name permits an inference of registration and use in bad faith Moreover Complainant provides evidence that Respondent registered 41 domain names that wholly incorporate famous marks of

with the domain name and that passive holding of a domain name permits an inference of registration and use in bad faith The Panel finds the passive use sustains registration and use in bad faith Complainant alleges that Respondent s actual

on the notion that the passive holding of a domain name without putting it to any use when considered in conjunction with the other circumstances of the case may support a finding of bad faith see among others Advanced Comfort Inc v Frank

to positive action and that passive holding of a domain name may constitute bad faith use see WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows Bad faith use in the meaning of the Policy paragraph 4 a iii may also

that the 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

domain names to find that the passive holding of these domain names amounts to bad faith See Telstra Corp v Nuclear Marshmallows D2000-0003 WIPO Feb 18 2000 finding that it is possible in certain circumstances for inactivity by the Respondent to

is a parallel between such passive holding cases and this case in which Respondent is not using the domain name for any business or non-business use of its own the sole use being one created by Complainant Registrants who have no use of their

Case No D2000-0003 held that holding a domain without attempting to make use of it can constitute acting in bad faith Healthy Back contends that the domain was registered in bad faith by someone who was aware of the existence of a webiste at that

s actions constitute passive holding of an infringing domain name Therefore Respondent fails to establish rights or legitimate interests in the domain name under Policy Paragraph Paragraph 4 c i and iii See G.D Searle v Martin Mktg FA

Resolution Policy in cases of passive holding of the domain name first provided in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and in a number of following decisions such as Ingersoll-Rand v Frank Gully d/b/a

amounts to little more than passive holding of the domain name Considering that Respondent deliberately chose to register a domain name that entirely incorporates Complainant s famous DINERS CLUB mark the Panel concludes that Respondent s passive

refers to many bad faith passive holding decisions A consumer who encounters any website accessed via Respondent s allaboutlevitra.com domain name will be likely to be confused as to the source sponsorship or approval of the content Reference

domain name in bad faith by holding it passively and by offering the name for sale Nevertheless the essential prerequisite which Complainant has not demonstrated is bad faith registration The disputed domain name was registered on May 2 1997

any other purpose Furthermore passive holding of a domain without the intend to sell can also constitute bad faith In Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 the Administrative Panel decided that the 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