to support a finding that passive holding of a domain name satisfies the bad faith requirements E.g 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

the Domain Name is a sign of passive holding in bad faith In support of this argument Complainant cites the case Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows Case no D2000-0003 in which the Panelist held that the passive holding of a domain

the Respondent s holding of the domain name must amount to acting in bad faith and the criteria of being used in bad faith must be fulfilled B Respondent The Respondent has not contested the allegations of the Complaint 6 Discussion

the panel considered that passive holding of a domain name satisfies the requirement of paragraph 4 a iii that the domain name is being used in bad faith by Respondent Complainant therefore concludes that the three elements set out at paragraph

name in addition to the passive holding of the domain name reveal that the Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith see also Clerical Med Inv Group Ltd v Clericalmedical.com D2000-1228 WIPO Nov 28 2000 finding that merely

the domain names Respondent s passive holding of the grannyhadone.com domain name does not demonstrate a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 c i See American Home Prod Corp v Malgioglio D2000-1602 WIPO Feb 19 2001

sale to Complainant Just as passive holding of infringing domain names can be evidence of no rights or legitimate interests passive holding also constitutes some evidence of bad faith under Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See Alitalia Linee Aeree

Use in Bad Faith Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain names is evidence of 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 satisfies the

to support the finding that passive holding of an infringing domain name is evidence of bad faith See e.g Clerical Med Inv Group Ltd v Clericalmedical.com D2000-1228 WIPO Nov 28 2000 finding that merely holding an infringing domain name without

the domain name beyond mere passive holding While it is true that Instead.com Inc has offered to sell the disputed domain name on the Great Domains auction site the intent to sell a common word domain name itself can constitute a legitimate

show that the Respondent s passive holding amounts to acting in bad faith In the circumstances of this administrative proceeding the duty of the Respondent was manifestly not to use the Domain Names but rather to hold them to the order of

utilizing the domain name Passive holding of a domain name permits an inference of registration and use in 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

concluded 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 In fact the panel in Telstra transferred the domain name at issue even though

5 In the leading case on passive use Footnote 6 passive holding was held to amount to acting in bad faith where i the Complainant s trademark had a strong reputation and was widely known ii the Respondent provided no evidence of any actual or

name in addition to the passive holding of the domain name reveal that the Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith see also Clerical Med Inv Group Ltd v Clericalmedical.com D2000-1228 WIPO Nov 28 2000 finding that merely

is therefore whether the passive holding of the domain name may be considered to be registration and use in bad faith taking into account all circumstances of the present case In that context it has been convincingly argued in Telstra

i or iii Respondent has been passively holding the domain names and has not made a bona fide offering of goods in connection with the domain names See Chanel Inc v Heyward D2000-1802 Feb 23 2001 finding no rights or legitimate interests where

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

in the disputed domain name s passive holding Furthermore Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name supports a finding of bad faith See Alitalia Linee Aeree Italiane S.p.A v Colour Digital D2000-1260 WIPO Nov 23 2000 finding bad

the domain names Respondent s passive holding of the mybloomberg.com domain name does not demonstrate a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 c i See American Home Prod Corp v Malgioglio D2000-1602 WIPO Feb 19 2001