2000 The Panel finds these passive holding cases to be directly on point with the facts of this case The passive holding test has been well established in the UDRP and as such this Panel concludes that given the domain name s inactivity for the

in a situation involving a passive holding of the domain name registration Among the circumstances indicating that passive holding amounts to use in bad faith Telstra listed cases where the Complainant s trademark has a strong reputation and is

In the current case the passive holding of the domain name inbursa.com constitutes bad faith B Respondent contends that The Complainant brings no evidence as to the commercial presence banking activity or marketing campaign in California or

Use in Bad Faith Respondent s passive holding of the domain names at issue 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

name in addition to the passive holding of the domain name reveal that the Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith As a result the Panel finds that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith

registration in August 1998 Passive holding of a domain name is evidence of bad faith use 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 requirement

that the Respondent s passive holding of the domain name satisfies the requirement of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy Moreover given Complainant s high profile presence in the financial community Respondent knew or reasonably should have

there is an issue of passive holding Passive holding of a domain name not connected to Respondent may be evidence of bad faith registration and use See Alitalia Linee Aeree Italiane S.p.A v Colour Digital D2000-1260 WIPO Nov 23 2000

name in addition to the passive holding of the domain name reveal that the Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith Additionally Respondent s attempt to sell the domain names to Complainant for excess of out of pocket

D2000-0003 WIPO Feb 18 2000 holding that the mere passive holding of a domain name that corresponds to well-known trademark satisfies the requirement of Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy paragraph 4 a iii that the domain name is being used in bad

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

name Respondent has been passively holding registration of the domain name at issue and has thereby deprived a corresponding trademark owner of its use The evidence is contradictory as to whether Respondent demanded several hundred thousands

WIPO Feb 18 2000 finding that passive holding of a domain name is use of the domain name in bad faith Taking into consideration all the circumstances including the timing of the domain name registration which coincided with the launch of the

Policy considered that even passive holding may be regarded as use in bad faith In light of the foregoing the Panel concludes that the requirement of Paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy has been fully met thus meaning that the disputed Domain Name

to the Domain Name and mere passive holding thereof constitutes bad faith See Aeroturbine Inc v Domain Leasing Ltd NAF Case No NAF FA0093674 March 23 2000 bad faith registration followed by inaction or passive holding constitutes bad faith use of

held by many other panels the passive holding of a domain name may be sufficient to meet the use requirement of paragraph 4 b of the Uniform Policy see for instance the famous Telstra decision WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Therefore the undersigned is of

name in bad faith due to its passive holding of the registration The Complainant asserts that under certain circumstances actual affirmative use of a domain name is not required for a determination of bad faith First the Complainant asserts that

the domain name in bad faith Passive holding of a domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use of a domain name See Clerical Med Inv Group Ltd v Clericalmedical.com D2000-1228 WIPO Nov 28 2000 finding that merely holding an infringing

Additionally Respondent s passive holding of the domain name is evidence of Respondent s lack of rights and legitimate interests in the domain name See Flor-Jon Films Inc v Larson FA 94974 Nat Arb Forum July 25 2000 finding that Respondent s

like to remind the Panel that passive holding of a domain name can amount to bad faith See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 During the course of its investigation Complainant found no evidence that the