that the Respondent s passive holding of the domain name satisfies the requirement of paragraph 4 a iii that the domain name is being used in bad faith by Respondent In that way the domain name cannot be registered or be used by any other

and such inaction called passive holding of a domain name has been held to constitute use of the domain name in bad faith See Telstra Corporation Limited supra and Compaq Computer Corporation v Beric D2000-0042 The respondent s registration of

s name Respondent s continued passive holding of the domain name indicates use in bad faith Respondent registered the domain name in December 1998 but since that time has not made any use of the domain name other than making several attempts to

to act in bad faith by passively holding the domain name without any actual or planned beneficial use B Respondent has not submitted a response in this matter FINDINGSFounded in 1998 Synaxia Networks Corporation specializes in 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 The more difficult question is when Respondent s bad faith began Respondent

is within the concept The passive holding of the domain name by the Respondent can constitute a bad faith use B Respondent The Respondent has not submitted a Response and is in default After the notification of Respondent default Respondent has

name in addition to the passive holding of the domain name reveal that the Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith Having failed to provide any evidence to the contrary the Panelist finds that the evidence indicates

other than a bad faith passive holding intention C Bad faith In correspondence dated April 4 2000 Respondent alleged that an amount of USD 62.680 sixty-two thousand six hundred eighty dollars would be due in order to refrain from using the

the allegation that his passive holding of the Domain Name means that he is holding it hostage The Respondent points out that there is no obligation on a Domain Name registrant to use it for any purpose commercial or otherwise nor is there

case WIPO D2000-0003 that the passive holding of a domain name can constitute bad faith use Telstra decision has also established that whether inaction can constitute bad faith registration and use in bad faith can only be determined by analyzing

No D2000-0003 in a case of passive holding of the domain name and in a number of following decisions such as Ingersoll-Rand v Frank Gully d/b/a Advcomren WIPO Case No D2000-0021 Compaq Computer Corp v Boris Beric WIPO Case No D2000-0042 Guerlain

sub 7.11 the registration and passive holding of a domain name can amount to bad faith in respect of the particular facts of a specific case The Telstra Panel introduced a test which might be used in this case as well It has to be determined

use as does its continued passive holding of the name This bad faith is clearly shown by the various messages on the website already quoted The Respondent filed a Response of immoderate length some 26 A4 pages which is difficult to summarize

examples recognize that a passive holding of a domain name registration can in certain circumstances constitute using the domain name in bad faith The concept of a domain name being used in bad faith is not limited to positive action WIPO Case

examples recognize that a passive holding of a domain name registration can in certain circumstances constitute using the domain name in bad faith The concept of a domain name being used in bad faith is not limited to positive action WIPO Case

for active websites inaction passive holding can constitute bad faith use The circumstances set out in paragraph 4b of the Policy are not exclusionary of other factors The Panel must give close attention to all the circumstances of the Respondent

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

case that the Respondent s passive holding of the Complainant s mark as a domain name in that situation constituted bad faith use There is no evidence to show that the Respondent has taken any positive action in relation to the mysony.com domain

those facts A simple passive holding of the domain name by the Respondent should not in absence of any particular circumstances of the case such as those listed under 4b i-iii of the Policy amount to a finding of use in bad faith However

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