faith Finally Respondent s passive holding of the domain name is evidence of bad faith See Caravan Club v Mrgsale FA 95314 Nat Arb Forum Aug 30 2000 finding that the Respondent had made no use of the domain name or website that connects with the

four and one half months had passively held the domain name such passive holding permitted an inference of registration and use in bad faith Finally Respondent s pattern of registering infringing domain names additionally supports a finding of bad

and use Respondent s passive holding of the domain names is evidence of bad faith See Caravan Club v Mrgsale FA 95314 Nat Arb Forum Aug 30 2000 finding that the Respondent had made no use of the domain name or website that connects with

asserts that Respondent is holding the disputed domain name passively and passive holding of domain names that contain in their entirety the registered mark of another does not convey to Respondent rights or legitimate interests in the disputed

in bad faith followed by a passive holding of a domain name when there is no way in which it could be used legitimately can amount to use in bad faith Telstra Corporation Ltd v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 In addition it would be

of WIPO decisions that the passive holding of a domain name and failure to commercialize are factors to consider in deciding whether a domain name has been used in bad faith See WIPO Decision D2000-0003 Telstra Corporation v Nuclear Marshmallows

contends that Respondent passive holding of the domain name constitutes use in bad faith and that the domain name has already been the subject of illegitimate trading Complainant refers to the decision Guerlain S.A v Peikang WIPO Case No

has acted in bad faith by passively holding the domain name at issue since its registration See Cruzeiro Licenciamentos Ltda v Sallen and Sallen Enters D2000-0715 WIPO Sept 6 2000 finding that mere passive holding of a domain name can qualify

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

18 2000 In each instance such passive holding was seen as sufficient evidence of bad faith use and registration under the general provisions of paragraph 4 b of the Policy The Panel see no plausible reason to divert from that view with the passive

bad faith Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name further establishes Respondent s 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 name

bad faith Respondent s passive holding of the valeria.com and valeriamazza.com domain names also permits an inference of Respondent s bad faith See DCI S.A v Link Commercial Corp D2000-1232 WIPO Dec 7 2000 concluding that Respondent s

Use in Bad Faith Respondent s passive use of the domain name indicates 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

that Respondent is engaged in passive holding of the domain name It has been found that the mere registration of a domain name is not enough to create rights and legitimate interests in the domain name See Bloomberg L.P v Sandhu FA 96261 Nat Arb

Panels who have found that passively holding a well-known trademark as a domain name can amount to registration and use in bad faith How much nonuse time constitutes bad faith depends on the circumstances In this case the Respondent registered

NETZERO mark Respondent passive holding of the confusingly similar domain name is evidence of bad faith and therefore satisfies Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See DCI S.A v Link Commercial Corp D2000-1232 WIPO Dec 7 2000 concluding that the

can be inferred based on the passive holding and short time between registration and attempt to auction the disputed domain name that Respondent registered the domain name with the intention of selling it See Hewlett-Packard Co v High Performance

D2000-0132 inaction or even a passive holding of a domain name registration can in some circumstances constitute using a domain name in bad faith This concept is believed to have been first sustained in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear

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

domain name coupled with passive holding is 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 raises the