to say that inactivity or passive holding of the domain name by the Respondent may prove that the domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith The Respondent s passive use of the domain names together with the questionable

that the inactive or passive holding of a domain name can under appropriate circumstances constitute bad faith use within the meaning of the Policy see Telstra Corporation Ltd v Nuclear Marshmallows Case N D2000-0003 and its progeny Such

the domain name Respondent s passive holding of the domain name provides support for a determination of bad faith registration and use See Telstra Corp Ltd v Nuclear Marshmallows Case No D2000-0003 Feb 18 2000 7 Decision In view of the above the

registered in bad faith The passive holding of the domain names in dispute by Respondent is further evidence of bad faith under Policy 4 b See EMKA-Inc v E.K.M.A Inc FA 95133 Nat Arb Forum Aug 10 2000 stating that passive holding of a domain name

The fact that Respondent is passively holding the broadcomonline.com domain name is evidence of bad faith See Northwest Racing Assoc LP v Quantu Mktg FA 95506 Nat Arb Forum Oct 6 2000 finding that passive holding of emeralddowns.com is evidence

Sept 6 2000 finding that mere passive holding of a domain name can qualify as bad faith if the domain name owner s conduct creates the impression that the name is for sale Southern Co v Doms D2000-0184 WIPO May 8 2000 finding that the Respondent

Under certain circumstances 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

18 months amounts to passive holding which while being fully cognizant of the Complainant trademark rights evidences bad faith use Various panels have held that passive holding coupled with knowledge of trademark rights of a complainant in

typically referred to as passive holding However in each instance non-use was coupled with a complainant having valid trademark rights commencing prior to the date on which the offending domain name was registered coupled with the registrant

case for the proposition that passive holding of a domain name without any attempts to develop the website raises the inference of use in bad faith Of course this expression was offered in the context of different facts and it is not appropriate to

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

that the Respondent s passive holding of the domain name satisfies the requirement of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy Further it appears Respondent provided misleading information in connection with its registration of the disputed domain

it in October of 1999 Passive holding of a domain name for such an extended period of time may also constitute evidence of bad faith See Telstra Corp v Nuclear Marshmallows D2000-0003 WIPO Feb 18 2000 I t is possible in certain

shows that Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name This is evidence of bad faith See DCI S.A v Link Commercial Corp D2000-1232 WIPO Dec 7 2000 concluding that Respondent s passive holding of the domain name satisfies the

ii of the Policy Respondent passive holding of the domain name when coupled with the other evidence of bad faith and the fame of Complainant PGA marks provides further support for a determination of bad faith registration and use See Telstra Corp

in a situation involving a passive holding of the domain name registration Of course these three paragraphs require additional facts an intention to sell rent or transfer the registration for paragraph 4 b i a pattern of conduct preventing a

have found that non-use or passive holding of a domain name is sufficient to conclude bad faith registration and use In Telstra for example the panel considered a number of factors which included the following i the Complainant's trademark has a

28 2000 finding that merely holding an infringing domain name without active use can constitute use in bad faith DCI S.A v Link Commercial Corp D2000-1232 WIPO Dec 7 2000 concluding that the Respondent s passive holding of the 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 D 2000-0003 In addition it would be

28 2000 finding that merely holding an infringing domain name without active use can constitute use in bad faith see also DCI S.A v Link Commercial Corp D2000-1232 WIPO Dec 7 2000 concluding that the Respondent s passive holding of the domain