is therefore whether the passive holding of the domain name may be considered to be registration and use in bad faith taking into account all circumstances of the present case In that context it has been convincingly argued in Telstra Limited

of Complainant contentions of passive holding which contentions of fact Respondent basically admits the Panel notes that as in Telstra v Nuclear Marshmallows D2000-0003 WIPO February 18 2000 so too in this case passive holding of a domain name can

any legitimate purpose Also passive holding of a Domain Name is evidence of bad faith The Respondent has on the same day as for sonyphilips.com registered the domain name hondaisuzu.com which contains two well-known trademarks HONDA and ISUZU

could have done much more Passive holding is not an issue in this case that doctrine was intended to target cybersquatters who silently hold a name without any use hoping that the Complainant will eventually come to them to strike a deal In

relation to the domain name Passive holding of a domain name may thus under certain circumstances amount to a use of the domain name in bad faith However according to Complainant in the case at issue the holding of the domain name is somewhat

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 Based on the on STOP IP Claim procedure Respondent received actual notice of

but only to the register.com holding page Accordingly this Panel finds that Complainants has proved that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name C The Respondent Registered and Used the Domain Name in Bad

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 Furthermore Respondent s registration of a domain name to prevent

Furthermore Respondent s passive holding of the americanredcrossmusic.com domain name constitutes bad faith under 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

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

circumstances of inaction passive holding other than those identified in paragraph 4 b i ii and iii can constitute a domain name being used in bad faith A remedy can be obtained under the Uniform Policy only if those circumstances of the

expenses iv Respondent is passively holding the Domain Name without use v it is highly likely that Respondent was aware of Complainant and Complainant s rights to the mark GKN when Respondent registered the Domain Name vi Respondent s

Case No D2000-0003 even a passive holding of a domain name in the context of strong evidence of bad faith registration will not frustrate a Complainant s allegation of bad faith registration and use This is enough to find bad faith registration

to use its mark and passive holding cannot demonstrate legitimacy The disputed domain name was registered in bad faith because it was registered long after Complainant established its rights in its BEA mark in the United States Korea and

fact that this is a case of passive holding or use of the name The fame of the Complainant s mark and the failure of the Respondent to respond to the Complaint leads the Panel to believe that the Respondent registered the name primarily for the

that such constitutes passive use or holding of the domain name It is additionally noted that no evidence has been provided by the Respondent of any actual or contemplated legitimate noncommercial good faith or fair use of the domain name

without developing a website Passive holding is considered to be 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 satisfies the bad faith registration and use

of a domain name or the passive holding of a domain name has been found to amount to a use in bad faith The Respondent has a history of registering domain names which are identical or confusingly similar to registered surfing related

The issue is whether the passive holding of a domain name incorporating a very well known trademark may amount to the domain name being used in bad faith The Panel in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003

having been made Respondent s passive holding of the names demonstrates its lack of rights or interests therein See Bloomberg L.P v Sandhu FA 96261 Nat Arb Forum Feb 12 2001 finding that no rights or legitimate interest can be found when Respondent