it to a website but says that passive holding of a domain name has been held to constitute bad faith use of a domain name It refers to the following decisions in report of that submission i The decision of the Panelist in National Arbitration Forum

it was ascertained that passive holding of a domain name may be sufficient to constitute bad faith use taking into consideration the overall context of Respondent behavior In the present case the following circumstances seem relevant in this

May 2001 that the Respondent passive holding of the Domain Names registration therefore constitutes use in bad faith The Respondent did not file any Response to the Complaint 6 Discussion and Findings To have the disputed Domain Names transferred

also of the opinion that the passive holding of the Domain Name since its registration no use other than putting it up for auction in question combined with the lack of explanation or evidence provided by the Respondent to demonstrate the good

may be inferred from the passive holding of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a third party s mark See e.g Advanced Micro Devices Inc v No Name WIPO Case No D2000-0515 Sep 13 2000 Telstra Corp v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No

Complainant s mark Respondent passive holding of the domain name can be nothing other than bad faith In addition Respondent s failure to respond to Complainant June 13 2001 letter and subsequent email further demonstrates Respondent bad faith

Respondent s registration and passive holding of the oto.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 faith

argues that Respondent passive holding of the domain name i.e Respondent failure to use the domain name in connection with an active web site supports a finding of bad faith registration and use 6 Discussion and Findings The Panel has

Thus he argues that he is not passively holding the domain names Respondent alleges that his attempt to obtain a charitable contribution in exchange for the transfer of the registration of the domain names to Elder does not constitute bad faith

Respondent s registration and passive holding of the dialpad.ph and dialpad.com.ph domain names supports a finding of bad faith under Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See Alitalia Linee Aeree Italiane S.p.A v Colour Digital D2000-1260 WIPO Nov 23 2000

is connected to a website holding page indicating that the website is under construction On that holding page is a link to a website or websites publicising other products/services 5 Parties Contentions A Complainant The Complainant contends

in Paragraph 4 b i iii passive holding of a Domain Name after its registration may under certain circumstances constitute bad faith use see Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows case No D2000-0003 para 7.10 Since a distinction

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

name in the future Such passive holding constitutes bad faith The Respondent also is in bad faith because he furnished inaccurate personal contact information to the registrar of the domain name The Respondent attempted to sell the domain

name Furthermore Respondent s passive holding of the domain name is also evidence Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the name Complainant succeeds on this element as well Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent has registered

paragraph 4 c See Thomas Cook Holdings Limited v Tailor Made Travel WIPO Case No D2001-0435 May 24 2001 passive holding of domain name may constitute bad faith It has been determined under the Policy that registration in bad faith followed by a

amounting to an allegation of passive holding is unfounded Respondent contends that its offer for sale was legitimate and was not in bad faith FINDINGS It is the finding of the Panel that the requested relief should be denied DISCUSSION Paragraph

amounting to an allegation of passive holding is unfounded Respondent contends that its offer for sale was legitimate and was not in bad faith FINDINGS It is the finding of the Panel that the requested relief should be denied DISCUSSION Paragraph

the Respondent is engaged in passive holding of the said domain name electrophilipsindia.com such as to permit this Administrative Panel to conclude that said domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith In Telstra Corporation Limited

registration and continued holding of the domain names in dispute by the Respondent amounts to the Respondent acting in bad faith for the following basic reasons the Complainant name Elsevier Science has a strong reputation and is widely known