recognises that inaction e.g passive holding in relation to a domain name registration can in certain circumstances constitute a Domain Name being used in bad faith That Panel then identified five particular circumstances in that case which led to

Response page 2 The mere passive holding of these names would also constitute use in bad faith under the principles enunciated by the Panel in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 6.4 Conclusions The Panel

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 the Respondent s passive holding of the domain name satisfies

Respondent s registration and passive holding of bergdorfs.com amounts to bad faith Respondent has shown further bad faith by supplying false information to the registrar when registering the domain name Complainant sent a cease and desist letter

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 the Respondent s passive holding of the domain

panels have held that a passive holding of a domain name may be sufficient to constitute bad faith taking into consideration the overall context of Respondent behavior The Respondent in the present Administrative Proceedings is endeavouring

domain name other than in a passive manner Further after Complainant initially offered to purchase the disputed domain name Respondent countered the offer with a 40000 request Respondent has subsequently renewed the disputed domain name and has

in considering whether the passive holding of a domain name following a bad faith registration of it satisfies the requirements of paragraph 4 a iii the Administrative Panel must give close attention to all the circumstances of the Respondent s

a password In addition the passive holding of a domain name has been found to be use of the domain name in bad faith Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba d/b/a Toshiba Corporation v Distribution Purchasing & Logistics Corp WIPO Case No D2000-0464

the domain name constitutes passive holding of the domain in bad faith B Respondent Respondent accepts and acknowledges most of the factual allegations regarding Complainant s registered trademarks However Respondent denies that Nortel can be

costs Moreover Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain names for two years after Complainant rejected its offer to sell them indicates Respondent s bad faith See Educational Testing Serv v TOEFL D2000-0044 WIPO Mar 16 2000 finding

s inaction constitutes a passive holding of the domain name It has been well established that Respondent s passive holding of the domain name amounts to a bad faith use of the domain name in certain circumstances To determine whether the

France v Van Wijk & Mesker Holding BV Case No D2002-0028 1 The Parties The Complainant is Société Air France with registered office at Roissy CDG Cedex France The Complainant is represented by Mr Patrick Meyer trade mark agent with Meyer &

1999 It has been held that passively holding a domain name for over a year without constructing a website is not a bona fide use because mere registration of a domain name is not enough to create legitimate rights and interests See Bloomberg L.P

s use was anything but passive Respondent s passive use of a domain name that is obviously connected with Complainant can be considered a use in bad faith See Clerical Med Inv Group Ltd v Clericalmedical.com D2000-1228 WIPO Nov 28 2000

bad faith 5.3.3 Inactive or passive holding of a domain name of the type which applies in this case amounts to registration and use in bad faith the Telstra case WIPO Case No D2000-0003 By registering the domain names the Complainant is clearly

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

bad faith in registering and holding the domain name passively According to the evidence presented Respondent has offered the disputed domain name for consideration in excess of out-of-pocket costs Such action by Respondent is considered to in bad

circumstances of inaction passive holding can constitute a Domain Name being used in bad faith cannot be answered in the abstract but only in respect of the particular facts of a specific case Therefore the Administrative Panel must give close

of the UDRP in cases of passive holding of domain names first provided in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and in a number of following decisions e.g Ingersoll-Rand v Frank Gully WIPO Case No