the situation since also a passive holding of a domain name can infringe the Policy in particular if it is made with the intention to wait for the rightholder or a third party offer Respondent submitted a document the origin and authenticity of

other words inaction such as passive holding is within the concept of being used in bad faith This jurisdiction is supported by paragraph 4 b UDRP which denominates without limitation four sets of circumstances that are considered evidence of bad

use in bad faith Thus the passive holding of a domain name as is apparent from paragraphs 4b i iii inclusive can amount to bad faith use Relevant circumstances include where the Complainant trademark has a strong reputation and is widely known

its notoriety that Respondent passive holding of the Domain Name registration constitutes use in bad faith Respondent contends that the Complainant has not registered any com domains for its products Therefore the Respondent believed that

use in bad faith Thus the passive holding of a domain name as is apparent from paragraphs 4b i iii inclusive can amount to bad faith use Relevant circumstances include where the Complainant trademark has a strong reputation and is widely known

have repeatedly held that the passive holding of a domain name may constitute a use in the sense of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy The concept of a domain name being used in bad faith is not limited to positive action rather inaction is within the

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 Under the circumstances described in the Complaint and supporting documents the

e in seguito si e limitato al passive holding Inoltre secondo il Ricorrente il passive holding non e sufficiente a creare alcun interesse all'uso dei domini soprattutto tenendo conto del comportamento del Resistente che non ha neppure replicato

because his registration and passive holding of the Domain Name involves a pattern of conduct that prevents Complainant from reflecting its mark in a corresponding domain name Respondent contends that Complainant lacks any rights in the generic

Policy in a case of passive holding of the domain name first provided in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and in a number of following decisions such as Ingersoll-Rand v Frank Gully d/b/a

the Domain Names resolve to holding pages posted by Easyspace the registrar and do not mention Respondent or Respondent business activities On January 24 2001 Gambro counsel sent a cease and desist letter to Respondent informing Respondent of

to an active website but the passive holding of the domain name without use in commerce may support a holding of use in bad faith Recordati S.P.A v Domain Name Clearing Co D2000-0194 WIPO July 21 2000 Respondent has held the infringing domain name

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

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

PANEL DECISION Thomas Cook Holdings Limited v Tailor Made Travel Case No D2001-0435 1 The Parties The Complainant in this proceeding is Thomas Cook Holdings Limited a private limited company incorporated in England whose registered office is at

with the Complainant iii The passive holding of the domain name and offer to sell the domain name for valuable consideration The Panel takes into account paragraph 4 b i of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy which provides for

that the Respondent s passive holding of the domain name satisfies the requirement of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy Consequently Policy ¶ 4 a iii has been satisfied DECISIONHaving established all three elements required under ICANN

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

with the Complainant that the passive holding of the domain name for some five 5 years with knowledge of the Complainant trademark rights in the name constitutes bad faith Other panels adjudicating under the Policy have found that shorter time

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