that the Respondent s passive holding of the domain name satisfies the requirement of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy see also Hewlett-Packard Co v Martineau FA 95359 Nat Arb Forum Aug 30 2000 finding that the Respondent s failure to submit

on the basis of bad-faith passive holding by the respondent unless the period of non-use is lengthy This is far from the majority view 4 Finally it cannot be gainsaid that even if Respondent is successful in retaining the ENETFOLIO.COM domain

from Complainant Complainant passive holding of a domain name based on the well-known and distinctive trade mark of a third party is further evidence of bad faith see Telstra Case supra The Panel therefore finds that Complainant has established a

that the Respondent s passive holding of the domain name satisfies the requirement of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy For the above reasons the Panel finds that Respondent registered the domain name in bad faith Policy ¶ 4 a iii

positive actions and that the passive holding in relation to a domain name registration can in certain circumstances constitute also another ground of use of a domain name in bad faith see WIPO Cases No D2000-0003 D2000-0055 D2000-0098 Although

and thenetworkingsolution.com Passive holding of the domain name in the context of Respondent s registration of other domain names identical to or confusingly similar to the trademarks of others has been held to be bad faith registration and use

is therefore whether the passive holding of the domain name can be considered to be registration and use in bad faith taking into account all circumstances of the present case In that context it has been convincingly argued in Telstra

of this particular case the passive holding of the domain name by the respondent amounts to the respondent acting in bad faith It concludes that it does The particular circumstances of this case which lead to this conclusion are i the

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 see also DCI S.A v Link Commercial Corp D2000-1232 WIPO Dec 7 2000

the domain name in question Passive holding of a domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and 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

alleges that Respondent has passively held the domain name since registering it on April 2 1997 Complainant relies on Telstra Corp Ltd v Nuclear Marshmallows D2000-0003 WIPO Feb 18 2000 for the proposition that the passive holding of a domain

most cases do suggest that passive holding of a domain name may be sufficient use to satisfy the Policy the panel is aware of some decisions that have required actual use It is this panelist s belief that instead of looking at the type of use or

that the Respondent s passive holding of the domain name satisfies the requirements of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy DECISIONComplainant having established all three elements required under ICANN Policy the Panel concludes that

the domain name However the passive holding of a domain name can constitute use in bad faith where the registration deprives one with rights in the domain name use of the domain name Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows D2000-0003

Complainant submits that even passive holding of a domain name can amount to bad faith while viarail.com is not active it precludes the Complainant from using the full extent of its trademark and trade name rights As noted above the Respondent did

the contested domain strictly passively The Respondent website is not operational and the Panel infers that it never has been The Panel simply does not see such passive use as rising up to a level under paragraph 4 c of the Policy to constitute a

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

the domain name constitutes passive holding Passive holding is a demonstration 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

Telstra decision D2000-0003 holding that use of a domain name may include passive holding of the domain name even if the web site has not been activated 7 Decision In light of the foregoing the Panel decides that 1 The Domain Names registered by

determines that Respondent passive holding of the domain name also constitutes evidence of bad faith See Chernow Communications v Kimball WIPO Case No D2000-0119 Mondich and American Wine Biscuits Inc v Brown WIPO Case No.D2000-0004 7 Decision