of pocket costs Respondents passive holding of the disputed domain names is also evidence of bad faith See DCI S.A v Link Commercial Corp D2000-1232 WIPO Dec 7 2000 concluding that the Respondents passive holding of the domain name satisfies the

Use in Bad Faith Respondents 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 Respondents passive holding of the domain name satisfies the

18 months amounts to passive holding which unquestionably reflects bad faith use Various panels have held that passive holding coupled with a respondent knowledge of trademark rights of a complainant in the name being so held can amount to

by UDRP precedent that passive holding of a confusingly similar domain name is evidence of bad faith under the UDRP See DCI S.A v Link Commercial Corp D2000-1232 WIPO Dec 7 2000 concluding that the Respondent s passive holding of the domain

by UDRP precedent that passive holding of a confusingly similar domain name is evidence of bad faith under the UDRP See DCI S.A v Link Commercial Corp D2000-1232 WIPO Dec 7 2000 concluding that the Respondent s passive holding of the domain

bad faith Respondents passive holding of the cargill.net domain name further establishes Respondents bad faith See DCI S.A v Link Commercial Corp D2000-1232 WIPO Dec 7 2000 concluding that Respondents passive holding of the domain name

almost 18 months ago Passive holding of a domain name is strong evidence of bad faith B Respondent No Response was received from Respondent FINDINGS Complainant is the senior user of the mark LOAN MART and has been continuously using the

Domain Name in dispute while passive holding of the Domain Name without use in commerce may support a holding of use in bad faith See Arturo Salice S.p.A v Paul Izzo & Company WIPO Case No D2000-0537 6.41 While this Panel is prepared to accept

Domain Name in dispute while passive holding of the Domain Name without use in commerce may support a holding of use in bad faith See Arturo Salice S.p.A v Paul Izzo & Company WIPO Case No D2000-0537 6.42 While this Panel is prepared to accept

concluded that a registrant s passive holding of a domain name for no purpose other than to prevent a trademark owner s use of a registration supported a finding of bad faith B Respondent The Respondent states that it registered this Domain Name in

is of the opinion that the passive holding of the Domain Name since its registration in question the lack of explanation or evidence provided by the Respondent to demonstrate the good faith registration or usage of the Domain Name infer bad

that such inaction called passive holding of a domain name must be regarded as a circumstance of evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to paragraph 4 b ii of the Policy see Telstra Corporation Limited supra and Compaq Computer

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

may be inferred from the passive holding of a confusingly similar domain name by a party without any legitimate interest see Complaint pp 6-7 There is evidence of such passive holding here in that the Respondent has not used the domain name in

even in the context of a passive inactive holding of a domain name The Telstra case WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The circumstances suggested in Telstra to be relevant to bad faith in that context were the well-known and widely known status of the

of the domain name Respondent passive holding of the domain name coupled with Respondent apparent failure to respond to any of Complainant communications provides support for a determination of bad faith registration and use See Telstra Corp Ltd v

PANEL DECISION PRL USA Holdings Inc and Ralph Lauren Media LLC v Morrison and Associates Case No D2001-0255 1 The Parties The Complainants in this administrative proceeding are PRL USA Holdings Inc a Delaware corporation with a principal

disputed domain names Such passive holding of the domain names constitutes evidence of bad faith registration and use See Neuberger Berman Inc v Jacobsen WIPO Case No D2000-0323 failure to use disputed domain name in the eight months since

PANEL DECISION ABN AMRO Holding N.V v Poldomeny Case No D2001-0465 1 The Parties The Complainant in this administrative proceeding is ABN AMRO Holding N.V Complainant a public company limited by shares incorporated under the laws of the

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 Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 February 18 2000 In