use It has been held that the passive holding of a domain name can give rise to a finding of bad faith registration and use See Telstra Corporation Ltd v Nuclear Marshmallows Case No D2000-0003 February 18 2000 Further the Panel agrees with

support in respect of alleged passive holding of a domain name by the Respondent B Respondent i The Respondent does not deny the allegation that the domain name ezstreet.com is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark EZ STREET of the

WIPO Feb 18 2000 finding that passive holding of a domain name is use of the domain name in bad faith Finally Respondent offered to sell the domain names to which he has shown no legitimate interest or right to the holder of the marks in question

WIPO Feb 18 2000 finding that passive holding of a domain name is use of the domain name in bad faith DECISION It is the unanimous decision of the panel that the domain names maurbeni.com and marubeni.org should be transferred to Complainant

of the domain name Here this passive holding also evidences bad faith See Hewlett-Packard Company v Greg Martineau FA 95359 Nat Arb Forum Aug 30 2000 finding that the Respondent s failure to submit an assertion of good faith intent to use the

asserts that the Respondent passive holding of the domain name should be considered as having been used in bad faith because 1 Complainant mark has a strong reputation and is widely known as evidenced by its substantial use in the U.S and

4 b recognize that a passive holding of a domain name registration can in certain circumstances constitute a domain name being used in bad faith The concept of a domain name being used in bad faith is not limited to positive action see

the Panelist held that the passive holding of a domain name may amount to use in bad faith when among other circumstances it appears that any plausible active use of the domain name by the respondent would be illegitimate The Panelist in Telstra

sub 7.11 the registration and passive holding of a domain name can amount to bad faith in respects 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 where

a Million Ltd 1999 RPC1 Such passive holding has been held in a number of cases to constitute use of the domain name in bad faith see Telstra v Nuclear Marshmellows Case D2000-003 Jupiters Ltd v Aaron Hall Case D2000-0574 and in the opinion of the

in various countries and the passive holding of the domain name with no related web site show the Respondent bad faith use ii No activity of the Respondent under the name TF1 To the Complainant knowledge the Respondent is not using the TF1 symbol

panel held that passive holding of a domain name can amount to bad faith B Respondent The brief Response in the form of a two page letter was filed by the said Jean Pierre Herreveld In essence the Respondent s submissions consisted of

name in addition to the passive holding of the domain name reveal that the Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith The Panel concludes that the Respondent has registered and used the domain name in bad faith DECISIONHaving

also argues that the passive holding of a domain name which prevents Complainant from reflecting its corporate name and mark in a corresponding domain name constitutes bad faith use and registration of the domain name 6 Discussion and

use more specifically its passive holding of the contested domain name amounts to bad faith In that regard the Complainant points to a a total lack of a legitimate web presence resolvable through the contested domain name or other legitimate

obstacle by concluding that passive holding can be bad faith use when the other circumstances warrant Here the circumstances warrant a finding of bad faith use It appears that Respondent has warehoused thousands of names that correspond to the

the domain name in question Passive holding of a domain name is evidence of bad faith See Telstra Corp v Nuclear Marshmallows D2000-0003 WIPO Feb 18 2000 The Respondent registered the domain name in question for the purpose of selling renting or

certainly would b 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 c The fact that the Respondent registered dowjonesupdate.com

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

name As discussed above the passive holding of the domain name wrinklecures.com can serve as evidence of Respondentís bad faith See 3636275 Canada d.b.a eResolution v eResolution.com WIPO Case No D2000-0110 April 10 2000 Telstra Ltd v Nuclear