being used in bad faith i The passive holding of the domain name by the Respondent constitutes use of the domain name in bad faith because i the Complainant s name is an invented and coined mark that has a strong world wide reputation ii there is

it was ascertained that a passive holding of a domain name may on its own be sufficient to constitute bad faith taking into consideration the overall context of Respondent behavior In the present case the following circumstances seem relevant

WIPO Case No D2000-0003 the passive holding of a domain name may amount to evidence of registration and use of a domain name in bad faith particularly if there are other circumstances as in the present case supporting such judgment One more

any misconduct active or passive by Respondent with respect to any other domain name and I cannot find any record of him as a party in any other proceeding under the Policy Registration in bad faith cannot be sustained here entirely by

the Respondent has acted with passive holding which has been repeatedly and consistently regarded by the Panel s decisions as use in bad faith since the very early decision Telstra Corp v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 In addition

that this is a case of passive holding According to Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 February 18 2000 the relevant issue is not whether the Respondent is undertaking a positive action in bad faith in

should be compared to a mere passive holding of the same domain name by the Respondent It is known that several WIPO decisions held that use in bad faith does not necessarily entail a positive action but also inaction in the presence of particular

asserted that he is not passively holding the Domain Name but rather is thinking all the time about the best course of action The Respondent also asserted that it does not have the resources like Nike to fund a quick solution sic a commercial

to a placeholder website Mere passive holding of a website does not amount to a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name within the meaning of paragraph 4 c iii of the Policy See Ziegenfelder Co v VMH Enterprises Inc WIPO Case No

that under some circumstances passive holding of a domain name can constitute bad faith use of that domain name Here the Panel considered whether the surrounding circumstances in this case present the kind of circumstances envisioned by the Telstra

with the domain name and that passive holding of a domain name permits an inference of registration and use in bad faith see also Cruzeiro Licenciamentos Ltda v Sallen D2000-0715 WIPO Sept 6 2000 finding that mere passive holding of a domain name

Respondent s registration and passive holding of a domain name that is confusingly similar to Respondent s well-known mark is an opportunistic attempt to benefit from Complainant s goodwill and not considered to be a bona fide offering of goods or

Services is a pretext for passive holding Complainant s alleged Internet search reveals only two businesses associated with the Jenkins GMC company neither of which hold an apparent relation to the LIMITED mark Complainant maintains that

name for the Panel to find passive holding Respondent has the obligation of proffering a purpose or use for the domain name in response to Complainant s allegations Complainant asserts that no lawful use of the domain name has been made and

with the domain name and that passive holding of a domain name permits an inference of registration and 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

The Respondent current passive holding of the domain name in combination with having no legitimate rights or interests in the domain name and the likelihood of being aware of the CDW reputation and trademark can be interpreted as bad faith

exist any decision that the passive holding of a domain name constitutes bad faith use ought to require a particularly convincing set of circumstances 2 In this instance there are three circumstances which according to certain previous panel

is a text ‘book example of a passive site because it does little more than make information available to those interested in it Amazon Tan appears to be an operation where business was generated primarily by personal contacts of its founders These

two years is considered to be passive holding and evidence of bad faith use on the part of Respondent 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

4 c iii Respondent s passive holding of the domain names and lack of legitimate use implies that it lacks rights and interests in the domain name When confronted with Complainant s supported contentions the evidential burden shifts to