concluding that Respondent s passive holding of the domain name satisfies the requirement of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy This passive holding confirms that Respondent had no legitimate reason to register the domain name and made no

contends that Sua Wong s passive holding of the domain name should be considered having been used in bad faith quoting from the WIPO Telstra decision WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and citing WIPO Cases Nos D2000-0042 D2000-0055 and D2000-0196

under the UDRP that merely holding an infringing domain name without active use can constitute use in bad faith It is particularly pertinent that the respondent shows no sign of being an active business The passive holding of the Domain Name

decided in other cases the passive holding of the registration of a domain name may constitute bad faith use Remedies requested In accordance with Paragraph 4 b i should be 4.i of the Policy and for the reasons mentioned Complainant requests

to such domain name Even a passive holding of the domain name amounts to acting in bad faith See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows Case No D2000-0003 Administrative Panel Decision WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center 7.9-7.12

WIPO has recognised that the passive holding of a domain name that is confusingly similar to the mark of a complainant and the provision of false contact information may constitute bad faith under paragraph 4 b of the Policy Reference is made to

WIPO Case No D2000-0164 The passive holding of the domain name embratel.com with absolute knowledge of the damages that such conduct causes to the legitimate owner of EMBRATEL trademark constitutes a continuous use with bad faith of the domain

manner Respondent s passive holding of the domain name has continued now for almost two years This also permits an inference of bad faith See Mondich & Am Vintage Wine Biscuits Inc v Brown D2000-0004 WIPO Feb 16 2000 holding that the

bad faith Respondent s passive holding of the skelaxin.com frovatriptan.com and verelanpm.com domain names further establishes Respondent s bad faith See DCI S.A v Link Commercial Corp D2000-1232 WIPO Dec 7 2000 concluding that Respondent s

Respondent is engaged in the passive holding of the disputed domain name Because Complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case with respect to Policy Paragraph 4 a ii the Panel is unable to find that Respondent is without rights or

Complainants are part of a holding where Telefónica de España S.A is the mother company Complainants are based in Spain Argentina Brazil and Perú hereinafter Complainants The Respondent is Unifon AE which available information is as follows P

Use in Bad Faith Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name 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

under the Policy inaction passive holding has been found to be within the concept of use Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO case No D2000-0003 Barney s Inc v BNY Bulletin Board WIPO case No D2000-0059 CBS Broadcasting Inc v

registration data 3 passive holding of the disputed domain name and 4 Respondent s offer to sell the disputed domain name to Complainant Complainant requests that the Panel direct the registrar to transfer the disputed domain name to

Respondent s registration and passive possession of the foreverliving.tv domain name his offers to sell the domain name to FLPI originally by using a false name and his transparent attempts to secure insurance benefits in exchange for selling the

is known and recognized as passive holding first analysed and defined in WIPO Case Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows Case No D2000-0003 and confirmed in several WIPO cases In those cases the Administrative Panel concluded the

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

In certain circumstances such passive holding of a domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use See Telstra Corp v Nuclear Marshmallows D2000-0003 WIPO Feb 18 2000 I t is possible in certain circumstances for inactivity by the

Use in Bad Faith Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name 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 satisfies

Use in Bad Faith Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name evidences 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