complaint Thus inaction or passive holding of a domain name may also amount to the registration and use of the domain name in bad faith 7 Decision In the light of the forgoing findings namely that the domain name is identical or confusingly

in bad faith Moreover the passive holding of the domain name for almost two years is bad faith use See DCI S.A v Link Commercial Corp D2000-1232 WIPO Dec 7 2000 concluding that Respondent s passive holding of the domain name satisfies the

names thus Respondent s passive holding equates to use of the domain name in bad faith See Charles Jourdan Holding AG v AAIM D2000-0403 WIPO June 27 2000 finding it appropriate for the Panel to draw adverse inferences from Respondent s

name afl.com but has been passively holding the domain for three years for the only purpose of selling the domain name for an amount in excess of its out-of-pocket costs of registration See HomeFinishers Inc v Tom Schutz FA 123928 Nat Arb Forum

for the disputed domain name Passive holding of the name evidences Respondent s registration and use in bad faith See DCI S.A v Link Commercial Corp D2000-1232 WIPO Dec 7 2000 concluding that Respondent s passive holding of the domain name

to use the domain name by passive holding of the type referred to in the Nuclear Marshmallows case In the alternative it appears that the Respondent may have attempted to sell the domain name for profit to second-named Respondent 4 The

This is not a case of mere passive holding per se but a case where the combination of factors make it more likely than not that the Respondent is a cybersquatter who has registered and used the domain names in bad faith By its default Respondent

case are enough to establish passive bad-faith use under the UDRP guidelines citing some precedents regarding passive holding Wal-Mart Stores Inc vs Su Rong Ye WIPO Case No D2002-0771 October 17 2002 citing in turn Telstra Corporation Ltd v

points to bad faith use since passive holding of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a famous mark has been found to constitute bad faith in itself See Wal-Mart Stores Inc vs Su Rong Ye WIPO Case No D2002-0771 October 17 2002

faith registration and use Passive holding of a domain name can be found to be evidence of bad faith use See Telstra Corp Ltd v Nuclear Marshmallows D2000-0003 WIPO Feb 28 2000 Each case must be considered on the particular facts presented to

noted in the Policy passive holding of a domain name has been held to be evidence of bad faith use and registration of a domain name under Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See DCI S.A v Link Commercial Corp D2000-1232 WIPO Dec 7 2000 concluding

domain name Thus Respondent s passive holding equates to use of the domain name in bad faith See Charles Jourdan Holding AG v AAIM D2000-0403 WIPO June 27 2000 finding it appropriate for the Panel to draw adverse inferences from Respondent s

Sept 6 2000 finding that mere passive holding of a domain name can qualify as bad faith if the domain name owner s conduct creates the impression that the name is for sale see also Educ Testing Serv v TOEFL D2000-0044 WIPO Mar 16 2000 finding that

purpose is considered to be passive holding Passive holding gives rise to an assumption of 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 the

which circumstances inaction passive holding of a disputed domain name could constitute use in bad faith It concluded that the particular circumstances of the case led to the conclusion that the passive holding of the domain name in such case

gain By engaging in passive holding of the pradacasa.com domain name the Respondent has registered and used it in bad faith There is no evidence that shows that the Respondent has taken any positive action in relation to the pradacasa.com

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

behavior is considered to be passive holding and evidence of 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 the Respondent s passive holding of the

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 Ingersoll-Rand Co v Frank Gully d/b/a Advcomren WIPO

in bad faith Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name for more than two and a half years also evidences bad faith use See Mondich & Am Vintage Wine Biscuits Inc v Brown D2000-0004 WIPO Feb 16 2000 holding that Respondent s