by reason of the Respondent passive holding of the domain name in issue Accordingly the Panel finds that the Complainant succeeds in establishing both limbs of paragraph 4a iii of the Policy 7 Decision For all the foregoing reasons the Panel

with the domain name and passive holding of a domain name permits an inference of registration and use in bad faith DECISIONAs all three elements required by the ICANN Policy Rule 4 a have been satisfied it is the decision of this panelist

have found that even the passive holding of a domain name that infringes a trademark can constitute bad faith use Complaint p 17 see for example Chernow Communications v Kimball WIPO Case No D2000-0119 also Mondich and American Wine Biscuits

D2000-0003 and 0055 the passive holding in relation to a domain registration can in certain circumstances constitute a domain name used in bad faith b Respondent The Respondent did not file any Response to the Complaint and was notified of

name in addition to the passive holding of the domain name reveal that Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith In this case it is clear to the Panelist that the domain names were registered purposefully non-randomly and in

in January of 1999 Passive holding of a domain name is evidence of no rights in the domain name and bad faith registration and use See Ziegenfelder Co v VMH Enterprises Inc D2000-0039 WIPO Mar 14 2000 finding that failure to provide a

also of the opinion that the passive holding of the Domain Names since their registration in question combined with the lack of explanation or evidence provided by the Respondent to demonstrate the good faith registration or usage of these Domain

also of the opinion that the passive holding of the Domain Name since its registration in question combined with the lack of explanation or evidence provided by the Respondent to demonstrate the good faith registration or usage of this Domain Name

the Domain Name and that holding it with the intent of using it as a portal was valid and not susceptible to any negative inferences The Panel disagrees with the Respondent s view and is of the opinion that the passive holding of the Domain

name and then engages in passive holding that in the circumstances of that case gave rise to finding of bad faith that did not strictly fit with the enumerated but non-exhaustive list in Paragraph 4 b of the UDRP Policy In Telstra the Panel

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 the present proceeding so

related to the domain name Passive holding of a domain name is evidence of bad faith Telstra Corp v Nuclear Marshmallows D2000-0003 WIPO Feb 18 2000 Respondent offers the domain name for sale through the Great Domains domain-name auction site

further finds that Respondent passive holding of the domain name in the absence of any legitimate right or interest constitutes bad faith use within the meaning adopted by the panel in Telstra v Nuclear Marshmallows Case D2000-0003 The notoriety of

also of the opinion that the passive holding of the Domain Name since its registration in question as well as the lack of evidence provided by the Respondent to demonstrate the good faith registration or usage of the Domain Name infer bad faith

bad faith in registering and passively holding the domain name at issue First this panelist acknowledges that Respondent registered the domain name with actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant s mark See CBS Broadcasting Inc v

see below then 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 The Respondents say that their proposed site would be directed at children They

in certain circumstances the passive holding of a domain name could constitute bad faith The special circumstances in Telstra strongly resemble the circumstances in this case As in the present case Telstra involved a defaulting Respondent the

D2000 0003 and 0055 the passive holding in relation to a domain registration can in certain circumstances constitute a domain name used in bad faith b Respondent The Respondent did not filed any Response to the Complaint and was notified of

name sony.net is similarly a passive holding that constitutes use of the domain name in bad faith because i the Complainant s mark is an invented and coined mark that has a strong worldwide reputation ii there is no evidence of any actual or

in finding that the passive holding of the domain name by the Respondent amounts to the Respondent acting in bad faith The Administrative Panel concludes that the Respondent holds the domain name in bad faith The particular circumstances