is evidence of bad faith The passive holding of a domain name can be in bad faith The Respondent Contentions A search on the U.S Trademark Agency database discloses six 6 trademarks registered to others comprised of the terms NOW and WATCH for use

recognises that inactivity or passive holding in relation to a domain name can in certain circumstances constitute use in bad faith of that domain name The Panel in Nuclear Marshmallows also made it plain that what circumstances of inactivity or

In addition Respondent s passive holding of the domain name at issue demonstrates bad faith See Alitalia Linee Aeree Italiane S.p.A v Colour Digital D2000-1260 WIPO Nov 23 2000 finding bad faith where the Respondent made no use of the domain

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 complainant

and Use in Bad Faith The passive holding of the domain name by a competitor of Complainant is a strong indication 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

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

that Respondent has passively held the domain name at issue 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 of paragraph 4 a iii

name The Panel views such passive holding by a competitor as being pernicious in nature with one of its affects here being a continuing denial of a competitor of its right to reflect its mark in a domain name hence further reflecting bad faith

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 Case D 2000-0003 In addition it would be both

concludes that the Respondent passive holding of the domain name satisfies the requirements of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith Comparable cases where in absence of any

the Policy Further Respondent passive holding of the disputed domain name also supports a determination of bad faith registration and use See for example Chernow Communications v Kimball WIPO Case No D2000-0119 Mondich and American Wine Biscuits

in the Telstra decision that passive holding of a domain name can amount to evidence of bad faith However in that case Telstra was found to be a newly coined word in which strong rights existed The respondent in that case had proffered no

Complainant alleges that passive holding of these names constitutes a violation of paragraph 4 b ii of the Policy since these names are identical or confusingly similar to the trademarks of others Complainant states that Respondent has used

Mr Corbett said he would be holding on to the domain name for the time being whereas Respondent asserts that Mr Corbett told Mr McDonald that he would be developing the web-site and that it was not for sale to anyone 5 Applicable Dispute 5.1 This

concludes that Respondent passive holding of the disputed domain name and the providing of false contact information to NSI are sufficient grounds upon which to establish the requisite bad faith 7 Decision In view of the above the Panel GRANTS

of the Domain Names e That passive holding of a domain name can constitute use in bad faith in certain circumstances The Complainant suspects that the Domain Names were registered to be sold to the Complainant that registration of the Domain

February 18 2000 The passive holding of a domain name may be sufficient to constitute bad faith use taking into consideration the overall context of the Respondent s behavior See Telstra supra At lease two prior WIPO Panels found bad faith

on March 13 1999 Respondent s passive holding is evidence of bad faith use of a domain name See E & J Gallo Winery v Oak Inv Group D2000-1213 WIPO Nov 12 2000 finding bad faith where 1 Respondent knew or should have known of the Complainant s

faith registration and use Passive holding of a domain name can constitute bad faith taking into account the overall context of the Respondent s behavior even where there is no affirmative use of the domain name This view has been upheld in at

event the circumstances show passive holding in bad faith B The ResponseRespondents vigorously object to the Complainants frequent inferences that the individual Respondents used fictitious names or aliases indicating that for the last 8 years