Corp v Kwon Moreover the passive holding of a domain name can constitute use in bad faith Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmellows Bad faith use also occurs where a domain name is registered to prevent the owner of a mark from

WIPO Feb 18 2000 finding that passive holding of a domain name is evidence of use of that domain name in bad faith The panel finds that the Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith DECISION Having established all three elements

of the above the Respondent s passive holding of the domain name must amount to acting in bad faith and the criteria of being used in bad faith must be fulfilled In conclusion all the above clearly shows that the domain name tetrabrik.com is

WIPO Feb 18 2000 finding that passive holding of a domain name is evidence of use in bad faith The Respondent has also provided incomplete and inaccurate information in the WHOIS directory For example when the Complainant attempted to send e-mail

use in bad faith based on the passive holding of a domain name.  See e.g Telstra Corporation Ltd v Nuclear Marshmallows Case No D2000-0003 In this dispute there is inadequate evidence to support a finding of bad faith The Complainant has failed to

Internet domain name holders holding domain names of unique value to trade mark owners were liable to make themselves vulnerable to civil proceedings by making the first approach to the intended purchaser 6.5.4 As indicated above the Panel is not

the Respondent s passive holding of the domain name must amount to acting in bad faith and the criteria of being used in bad faith must be fulfilled In conclusion all the above clearly shows that the domain name assaabloy.com is

the Panel found that passive holding of a domain name could amount to bad faith use stating Has the Complainant proved the additional requirement that the domain name is being used in bad faith by the Respondent The domain name telstra.org

WIPO Feb 18 2000 finding that passive holding of a domain name is evidence of bad faith The Respondent has registered many domain names with intent to benefit from other parties famous marks.  The Respondent knew or should have known of the

WIPO Feb 18 2000 finding that passive holding of a domain name is evidence of no legitimate use and use in bad faith Based on the above the panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name in question

Fourth the Respondent s passive holding of the domain name coupled with its express demand for valuable consideration and the Respondent s pattern of conduct involving the registration of other domain names corresponding to famous marks

in the domain name but is holding it passively that as Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted Registrant to use its trademarks or to apply for a domain name incorporating its trademark and that Complainant s mark is not one that

take any action and the mere passive holding of the disputed domain name support the inference that the registration and the use of the domain name internetamerica com has been in bad faith Therefore the Presiding Panelist finds that the

contract with NSI Respondent passively holds the domain name vattenfall.com and meets the use requirement of the UDRP as clarified in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 paragraph 4 b recognises sic that

circumstances of the inaction passive holding can constitute a domain name being used in bad faith This question cannot be answered in the abstract the question can only be answered in respect of the particular facts of a specific case Thus the

contract with NSI Respondent passively holds the domain name sydkraft.com and meets the use requirement of the UDRP as clarified in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 paragraph 4 b recognizes sic that

case precedent Respondent s passive holding of newbergerberman.com amounts to bad faith In more than eight months since registering newbergerberman.com Respondent apparently has made no actual use of this domain name m Paragraph 4 b of the

is acting merely as a passive holder of the Domain Name There can be no plausible legitimate business purpose of the Respondent s registration and passive use of the Domain Name Given that the Respondent has never used the Domain Name and

and use in bad faith The passive holding of a domain name has been held to be use of that domain name in bad faith Telstra Corporation v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 February 18 2000 at page 7 paragraph 7.11 Similarly failure

Marchmallows case even a passive holding of a domain name amounts to acting in bad faith d Maintaining a web site that does not work the Respondent tarnish the prestige of the trademark EMBRATEL e The use of identical and confusingly similar