have frequently held that passive holding of a domain name can be considered bad faith use under the Policy if other indications of bad faith are present Although non-use alone does not necessarily indicate bad faith here the fact that

Panel may find appropriate on passive holding and bad faith see Guerlain S.A v Peikang ICANN/WIPO Case No D2000-0055 March 21 2000 The Panel finds the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain in bad faith 7 Decision The Panel has

The circumstances of inaction passive holding are to be decided in relation to the facts of each particular case In the Telstra case those circumstances included the notoriety of the Complainant name and mark the lack of evidence of any actual or

perukinkos.com constitutes passive holding of the domain names which provides further evidence that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in those names See American Home Prod Corp v Malgioglio D2000-1602 WIPO Feb 19 2001 finding no

time Such nonuse constitutes passive holding and cannot establish a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 c i or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 c iii See

Such nonuse constitutes passive holding which is evidence of bad faith registration and use under the Policy See Grundfos A/S v Lokale D2000-1347 WIPO Nov 27 2000 failure to use the domain name in any context other than to offer it for sale

accuses Respondent of passive holding of the domain name even though Respondent only registered the domain name nine 9 months prior to the commencement of this proceeding Complainant fails to demonstrate passive holding as understood by the

the domain name to a free holding page constitutes bad-faith use In fact in a situation exactly like this where the domain name was also being forwarded to uk2.net the WIPO panelist ordered the domain name transferred to Complainant upon a

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

for over a year Respondent passive holding of the domain name demonstrates a lack of rights and legitimate interests because it has failed to use the domains for a bona fide offering of goods and services pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 c i See

for over a year Respondent passive holding of the domain name demonstrates a lack of rights and legitimate interests See Ziegenfelder Co v VMH Enter Inc D2000-0039 WIPO Mar 14 2000 finding that failure to provide a product or service or develop

Case No D2000-0003 found that passive holding of a domain name can be evidence in certain circumstances that a domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith T aking into account all of the above Complainant further asserts that it is

for over two years Respondent passive holding of the domain name demonstrates a lack of rights and legitimate interests See Ziegenfelder Co v VMH Enter Inc D2000-0039 WIPO Mar 14 2000 finding that failure to provide a product or service or develop

domain name constitutes passive holding which also indicates bad faith under the Policy See Clerical Med Inv Group Ltd v Clericalmedical.com D2000-1228 WIPO Nov 28 2000 finding that merely holding an infringing domain name without active use

in bad faith although through passive holding only Passive holding has been recognised as sufficient in a number of cases Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows case No D2000-0003 Ingersoll-Rand Co v Frank Gully d/b/a Advcomren case No

for over two years Respondent passive holding of the domain name demonstrates a lack of rights and legitimate interests See Ziegenfelder Co v VMH Enter Inc D2000-0039 WIPO Mar 14 2000 finding that failure to provide a product or service or develop

rights of third parties The passive holding of these multiple names is evidence of registration and use in bad faith Respondent has registered the disputed domain names in order to prevent Complainant from reflecting its mark in corresponding

in bad faith See Armstrong Holdings Inc v JAZ Associates FA 95234 Nat Arb Forum Aug 17 2000 maintenance of active web sites not necessary for finding of bad faith registration Telstra Corp Ltd v Nuclear Marshmallows D2000-0003 WIPO Feb 18 2000

that the Respondent has been passively holding the site I cannot agree with the Majority that the evidence of passive holding which presented itself after the commencement of this proceeding can constitute a justifiable instance of Panel-defined

of the domain name amounts to passive holding and bad faith use under the Policy See Clerical Med Inv Group Ltd v Clericalmedical.com D2000-1228 WIPO Nov 28 2000 finding that merely holding an infringing domain name without active use can