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

Moreover Respondent s current passive holding of the disputed domain name does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 c i nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 c

Complainant suggests that passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith In its Reply Brief Complainant alleges that Respondent s conduct following initiation of this proceeding in offering to sell or exchange the disputed

names 5.15 An appearance of passive holding of the Domain Name is for reasons including economic conditions and Respondent s belief that such a common name could not be registered as a trademark Respondent s activities can be distinguished from

by the Respondent 2 The passive holding of the Domain Name by the Respondent amounts to bad faith use as found by the Panelist in Telstra Corporation Ltd v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and 3 The circumstances clearly indicate

domain name to date However a passive holding of a domain name particularly in the context of strong evidence of bad faith registration has consistently been found not to frustrate a Complainant s allegation of bad faith registration and use

that under some circumstances passive holding of a domain name can constitute use in bad faith of that domain name Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 February 18 2000 In this Panel s opinion this case

domain name to date However a passive holding of a domain name particularly in the context of other evidence of bad faith registration has consistently been found not to frustrate a Complainant s allegation of bad faith registration and use Telstra

typically referred to as passive holding Passive holding is the antithesis of excused delay In cases where passive holding was found non ‘use was coupled with a complainant having valid trademark rights commencing prior to the date on which

explicitly agrees that such passive holding or passive used of domain names is also use within the meaning of this Policy See WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and several subsequent decisions Such passive holding clearly prevents the Complainant from

purpose Moreover Respondent s passive holding of hustlervideo.com suggests that it registered the domain name for the purpose of disrupting Complainant s business This provides further evidence of bad faith under the policy See DCI S.A v Link

because of the Respondent s passive holding of the domain name The present Panel respectfully disagrees with the Panel in WIPO Case No D2000-1668 this Panel does not view the Complainant s use of the PWC mark as particularly extensive for reasons

amount of time has passed the passive holding of a domain name is considered to be 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

pointed to a holding page provided by Alldomains.com the domain name total-fina-elf.net pointed to a holding page provided by Dotregistrar.com the domain name totalfina.info pointed to a holding page provided by DomainZoo.com

of time to constitute passive holding from which bad faith can be inferred 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

it This is considered to be passive holding and evidence of bad faith use 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 4 a

may further be considered as passive holding and under these circumstances this must be considered as a concrete evidence of bad faith By registering the eskidji.com domain name the Respondent is diverting consumers away from the Complainant s

that the Respondent s passive holding of the domain name satisfies the requirement of Paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy see also Clerical Med Inv Group Ltd v Clericalmedical.com D2000-1228 WIPO Nov 28 2000 finding that merely holding an

and the Respondent s lengthy passive holding of the Domain Name Marks that have a high degree of inherent or acquired distinctiveness are entitled to a greater scope of protection than others See Digital City Inc v Smalldomain WIPO Case No

do anything with it This is passive holding and therefore evidence of bad faith See Mondich & Am Vintage Wine Biscuits Inc v Brown D2000-0004 WIPO Feb 16 2000 holding that the Respondent s failure to develop its website in a two year period