FA 95095 Forum July 31 2000 holding that the respondent s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true see also Talk City Inc v Robertson D2000-0009 WIPO Feb 29 2000 In the

FA 95095 Forum July 31 2000 holding that the respondent s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true see also Talk City Inc v Robertson D2000-0009 WIPO Feb 29 2000 In the

actively used however such passive holding of a domain name reflecting a well-known mark constitutes bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings A Identical or Confusingly

continuously is considered a passive use under the policy and is evidence of a lack of legitimate interests in the domain name See Herbalife Int l Inc v Farmana D2005-0765 WIPO Oct 3 2005 parking of the domain name for many years constitutes no

argues that Respondent s passive holding constitutes bad faith especially when considered in conjunction with Respondent s pattern of conduct which consists of registering a total of twenty domain names incorporating the BLUE DIAMOND marks and

trademark The Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain names orientaltrading.shop and orientaltrading.store is a further indication of its bad faith as is its use of the disputed domain name orientaltrading.co to intentionally confuse

panelists have held so-called passive holding of a domain name to constitute use in bad faith That reasoning was first laid out in the case of Telstra Corporation Ltd v Nuclear Marshmallows D2000-0003 WIPO February 18 2000 vii A pre-condition is

The Panel agrees that the passive holding of a domain name does not necessarily circumvent a finding that the domain name is being used in bad faith within the requirements of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy See Telstra Corporation Limited v

bad faith use in the form of passive holding the replication of the Complainant s strong and well-established trademarks in the disputed domain name the absence of any evidence of actual or contemplated good faith use by the Respondent in the

to an active website The passive holding of a website does not show a legitimate use or bona fide offering of goods or services See Teachers Ins and Annuity Ass n of Am v Wreaks Commc ns Group D2006-0483 WIPO June 15 2006 passive holding of a

contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith and the panel must examine all the circumstances of the case to determine whether the respondent is acting in bad faith In this case the Complainant ™s

states that the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name incorporating the Complainant s trade mark is in bad faith The Complainant requests for the cancellation of the disputed domain name B Respondent i The Respondent contends

resolves is inactive That passive holding of a domain name does not serve to avoid a finding of bad faith use That the inclusion of a well-known trademarks in a domain name cannot be regarded as a legitimate use B Respondent The Respondent

in bad faith and the passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes use of the disputed domain name in bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4 a of

faith specifically the 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 d The Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in order to prevent

costs l Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain names further evinces bad faith m Respondent registered multiple confusingly similar domain names which constitutes cybersquatting behavior n Respondent must have had actual

email addresses Archipelago Holdings LLC v Creative Genius Domain Sales and Robert Aragon d/b/a/ Creative Genius Domain Name Sales WIPO Case No D2001-0729 Speedo Holdings B.V v Programmer Miss Kathy Beckerson John Smitt Matthew Simmons WIPO Case

trade mark The Respondent s passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name for use as a parking page does not negate the possibility of bad faith registration and use The use of the Disputed Domain Name to misdirect users to competitors of the

submits that the Respondent s passive holding of two of the disputed domain names does not prevent a finding of bad faith in all the circumstances of the case Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The

thus is in a clear state of passive holding The Complainant finally alleges that the Respondent s bad faith is definitely proven by the fact that the Respondent owns several other domain names that correspond to well-known third-party trademarks