finds that the Respondent has passively held the domain for more than three 3 years Passive holding has been found to be evidence of bad faith registration and use under the Policy See Cruzeiro Licenciamientos Ltda v Sallen D2000-0715 WIPO Sept 6

the Panel may infer that passive holding in these circumstances qualifies as bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 b See Clerical Med Inv Group Ltd v Clericalmedical.com D2000-1228 WIPO Nov 28 2000 finding that merely

case what circumstances of passive holding other than those identified in paragraphs 4 b I iii of the Policy can constitute that the domain name is being used by the Respondent in bad faith The Panelist considers that the sum of the following

that the Respondent s passive holding of the domain names and failure to respond to the letters mentioned above strongly suggest that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant s reputation and goodwill and that it registered the domain

the domain name Respondent s passive holding of the domain name suggests Respondent lacks rights in idig.us pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 c ii and iv See Vestel Elektronik Sanayi ve Ticaret AS v Kahveci D2000-1244 WIPO Nov 11 2000 finding that

envisages inactivity or a passive holding of a domain name satisfying the requirements of paragraph 4 b in certain circumstances Thus it is not necessary to point to any positive use of the domain name in bad faith and it is permissible instead

to positive action and that passive holding of a domain name may constitute bad faith use Bad faith use in the meaning of the Policy Paragraph 4 a iii may also according to previous decisions under the UDRP see Case No D1999-0001 consist of an

The Panel concludes that the passive holding of the red-cross.biz domain name in this case warrants a finding of a lack of rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy Paragraph Paragraph 4 c i and iii See Pharmacia & Upjohn AB v Romero

is further evidenced by their passive holding of the domain name the link at ggbridge.com to Bulan s business and the use of false and incomplete contact information The Respondents true intent has always been to allow Bulan to retain ggbridge.com

it has been held that the passive holding of a domain name may be sufficient to constitute bad faith use taking into consideration the overall context of Respondent s behaviour In the present case the following circumstances should be taken

three years ago Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name demonstrates Respondent s 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

panel found the respondent s passive holding of a domain name containing a famous trademark amounted to bad faith registration and use The Panel is aware that passive holding is not one of the specifically listed bad faith grounds under the Policy

Dick Blick Holdings Inc v Midnight Media Claim Number FA0303000151539 PARTIES Complainant is Dick Blick Holdings Inc Highland Park IL Complainant represented by Richard J Musgrave of Husch & Eppenberger LLC Respondent is Midnight Media

U.S.C §1072 Respondent has passively held the domain name for 11 months since registration Respondent s passive holding constitutes bad faith under Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See DCI S.A v Link Commercial Corp D2000-1232 WIPO Dec 7 2000 concluding

was in bad faith Respondent s passive holding of the domain name amounts to bad faith use of the domain name at issue See Telstra Corp v Nuclear Marshmallows D2000-0003 WIPO Feb 18 2000 finding that it is possible in certain circumstances for

by his inaction that is his passive holding of the domain name jvc-america.com to the exclusion of Complainant the owner of the JVC mark B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and FindingsAccording

accepted proposition that passive holding of a domain name can in certain circumstances constitute use of that domain name in bad faith The Complaint points to an analogy between the facts of this case and those in Westfield WIPO Case No

s registration such as its passive holding of the domain names and suggestive statements permit the inference that Respondent used the domain names in bad faith under the Policy See Cruzeiro Licenciamentos Ltda v Sallen D2000-0715 WIPO Sept 6

in contending that a passive holding of a domain name may on its own be sufficient to constitute use in bad faith taking into consideration the overall context of Respondent s behaviour Such circumstances are outlined in the Complaint

Finally the Respondents passive holding of the Domain Name in combination with having no legitimate rights or interest in the Domain Name and the strong likelihood of being aware of the Complainant s reputation can be interpreted as bad faith