Panel finds that Respondent s passive holding of the domain names does not establish rights or legitimate interests in the domain names under Policy Paragraph Paragraph 4 c i and iii See Chanel Inc v Heyward D2000-1802 WIPO Feb 23 2001 finding no

typically referred to as passive holding In each instance non-use coupled with a complainant having valid trademark rights commencing prior to the date on which the offending domain name was registered coupled with the registrant having actual

a well recognized reputation passive holding has been held to indicate bad faith see Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Here no such case can be made because the trademark on which the Complainant is relying

Complaint Thus inaction or passive holding of a domain name amounts to the registration and se of the domain name in bad faith 7 Decision In the light of the foregoing findings namely that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to

complaint Thus inaction or passive holding of a domain name amounts to the registration and use of the domain names in bad faith 7 Decision In the light of the forgoing findings namely that the domain names are identical or confusingly similar

28 2000 finding that merely holding an infringing domain name without active use can constitute use in bad faith see also DCI S.A v Link Commercial Corp D2000-1232 WIPO Dec 7 2000 concluding that Respondent s passive holding of the domain name

faith Finally Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name for over ten months evidences bad faith use and registration See Caravan Club v Mrgsale FA 95314 Nat Arb Forum Aug 30 2000 finding that Respondent made no use of the domain

name in good faith such passive holding equates to bad faith use and registration under Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See Phat Fashions v Kruger FA 96193 Nat Arb Forum Dec 29 2000 finding bad faith under Policy Paragraph 4 b iv even though

is at least in a position of passive holding Passive holding has been recognised as sufficient in a number of cases Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 quoted by Complainant but in connection with false

fanciful registrations such passive holding is sufficient to demonstrate bad faith conduct Whilst no direct offer of sale has occurred in this case an e-mail was received by the Complainant from one Alan Jones noting that serious offers would be

it for any purpose This is passive holding and evidence of bad faith use 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 holding an infringing domain name

Respondent engaged in passively holding the disputed domain name Respondent by failing to utilize the bloombergonline.com domain name raises the implication that Respondent is engaging in bad faith registration and use Respondent has failed

countries and Respondent is holding the website passive together with the fact the Respondent did not constructively respond to Complainant s communications clearly proves that Respondent is holding the domain name masterhunter.com in bad faith

with a legitimate business Passive holding of a domain name can be indicative of bad faith in conjunction with other relevant factors according to the Telstra Corporation v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 decision 3 Complainant s

Panel finds that Respondent s passive holding violates Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See DCI S.A v Link Commercial Corp D2000-1232 WIPO Dec 7 2000 concluding that the Respondent s passive holding of the domain name satisfies the requirement of Paragraph

use in bad faith ie through passive holding prohibits it from the legitimate use of its marks in the promotion of its educational mission B Respondent The First Respondent makes a number of points in its Response and Comments in relation to the

with the domain name and that passive holding of a domain name permits an inference of registration and use in bad faith Accordingly the Panel finds that Policy Paragraph 4 a iii has thus been satisfied DECISION Having established all three

D2000-0004 WIPO Feb 16 2000 holding that Respondent s failure to develop its website in a two year period raises the inference of registration in bad faith see also DCI S.A v Link Commercial Corp D2000-1232 WIPO Dec 7 2000 concluding that

concluding that Respondent s passive holding of the domain name satisfies the requirement of Paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy see also Mondich & Am Vintage Wine Biscuits Inc v Brown D2000-0004 WIPO Feb 16 2000 holding that Respondent s failure to

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