where the panel stated that passive holding of a domain name without use in commerce may support a holding of use in bad faith ii Respondent The Respondent has not submitted any Response to the Complaint 6 Discussion and Findings To succeed in

it can be inferred from the passive holding of a domain name for a long period of time that a Respondent does not have a bona fide intent to use the domain name Registration and Use in Bad Faith Section 4 b of the Policy states that the following

Respondent registration and passive holding of the statefarm-claims.com domain name supports a finding of bad faith pursuant to Policy Paragraph4 a iii See Alitalia Linee Aeree Italiane S.p.A v Colour Digital D2000-1260 WIPO Nov 23 2000 finding

Respondent registration and passive holding of the syncrude.org domain name supports a finding of bad faith pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See Alitalia Linee Aeree Italiane S.p.A v Colour Digital D2000-1260 WIPO Nov 23 2000 finding bad

positive actions but includes passive holding the Domain Name is being used in bad faith Respondent has not created an actual website corresponding to the disputed Domain Name nor has he made a clear offer to sell the Domain Name for a specific

does not constitute a typical passive holding as defined by previous decisions The Complainant has presented no evidence to support its assertion of bad faith registration and use The Complainant s assertions are all based on presumptions without

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

used the disputed domain name Passive holding of a domain is evidence of bad faith 17 Respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name

because Respondent has been passively holding the domain names 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 iii of the

that the Respondent s passive holding of the domain name satisfies the requirement of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy In conclusion given that the Respondent and Complainant are competitors in the same market area the Panel can only

has acted in bad faith by passively holding the domain name at issue since its registration See Telstra Corp v Nuclear Marshmallows D2000-0003 WIPO Feb 18 2000 finding passive holding is evidence of bad faith see also Cruzeiro Licenciamentos

Use in Bad Faith Respondent passive holding constitutes a finding of bad faith pursuant to 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 holding of the domain name

The fact that Respondent is passively holding the broadcombrokers.com and broadcombrokers.net domain names permits an inference of bad faith E.g Caravan Club v Mrgsale FA 95314 Nat Arb Forum Aug 30 2000 finding that the Respondent had made no use

of bad faith Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name supports a finding of bad faith pursuant to 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

Use in Bad Faith Respondent passive holding constitutes a finding of bad faith pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See Clerical Med Inv Group Ltd v Clericalmedical.com D2000-1228 WIPO Nov 28 2000 finding that merely holding an infringing domain

relies on UDRP decisions holding that in certain circumstances passive use may amount to use in bad faith The use requirement has been found in many cases not to require positive action inaction being within the concept 20 In the leading case

Case No D2000-0163 6.10 The passive holding of the Domain Name for a significant period with knowledge of the Complainant s trademark rights in the name has been held to constitute bad faith See Arturo Salice S.p.A v Paul Izzo & Company WIPO Case

also of the opinion that the passive holding of the Domain Name since its registration in question combined with the lack of explanation or evidence provided by the Respondent to demonstrate the good faith registration or usage of this Domain Name

this particular Complaint the passive holding of the domain name by the Respondent amounts to the Respondent acting in bad faith The Administrative Panel has come to the conclusion keeping in view the following circumstances that the passive

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