Presiding Panelist xi 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 Andrew F Christie Presiding Panelist xii In

PANEL DECISION TPI Holdings Inc v JB Designs Case No D 2000 0216 1 The Parties The Complainant is TPI Holdings Inc a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware having its principal place of business in

registered 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 pgph 7.11 Similarly failure to

in which inaction or mere passive holding is in point The record shows that Respondent has used the domain name registration as an element in commercial negotiations 6.1.7 The Panel therefore holds that the domain name has been used by

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 As the Respondent is domiciled in USA the

decisions it was held 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

the complainant s mark The passive holding of a domain name for any of these purposes may be sufficient to meet the use requirement of Paragraph 4 b See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows Case No D2000-0003 Complainant contends

is clear that the so-called passive holding of a domain name that is the registration of a domain name alone can support such a determination See paragraph 4 b of Policy The facts in this case support a determination that Respondent s passive

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 stralfors.com is

recognizes that 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 Complainant claims that the circumstances in the instant case show that

facts of a Complaint the passive holding of domain names by Respondent amounts to Respondent acting in bath faith In Decision D2000-003 relevant circumstances were held to include the strong reputation of Complainant trademark and its use

No D2000-0003 concludes that passive holding in relation to a domain name registration can in certain circumstances constitute a domain name use in bad faith Such circumstances however cannot be identified in abstract in considering whether a

name followed by inaction or passive holding constitutes bad faith use of the domain name   CONCLUSIONS Paragraph 4 a of the Policy requires that the Complainant must prove each of the following that the domain name registered by the Respondent is

show that the Respondent s passive holding amounts to acting in bad faith 7.12 The Administrative Panel has considered whether in the circumstances of this particular Complaint the passive holding of the domain name by the Respondent amounts to