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

for the time being at least passively holding this domain in adversity to Complainant s rights in the TEXTRON marks Complainant s registered TEXTRON trademark has a date of first use of 1976 and predates Respondent s domain registration by more

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

contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith The panel must examine all the circumstances of the case to determine whether the respondent is acting in bad faith Examples of what may be cumulative

registered and used and/or passively held the disputed domain name Despite the time between registration and the challenge to it such registration and use and/or passive holding supports findings of bad faith DISCUSSION Paragraph 15 a of the

websites i.e Domain Names passively held Complainant contends that absent some contrary evidence from Respondent this passive holding does not constitute legitimate noncommercial or fair use Moreover Complainant maintains that Respondent s

contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith The panel must examine all the circumstances of the case to determine whether the respondent is acting in bad faith Examples of what may be cumulative

and its related entity KCG IP Holdings LLC v Brian Johnson Claim Number FA1704001725322 PARTIES Complainant is Citadel LLC and its related entity KCG IP Holdings LLC Complainant represented by Paul D McGrady of Winston & Strawn Illinois USA

the Respondent since then has passively held The Respondent ™s passive holding of the disputed domain name does not support a claim of rights or legitimate interests See Philip Morris USA Inc v private WIPO Case No D2005-0790 and Telstra

use it submits that the passive holding is in these circumstances sufficient to meet the test for bad faith use under the Policy B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions and is in default No exceptional

offers to sell and/or passive holding of the disputed domain names The decisions involved inter alia the MORGAN STANLEY REMY MARTIN and SANOFI trade marks The Complainant s proprietary rights in the ROLLS-ROYCE marks long predate the date

only resolves to a standard holding page Under the circumstances of the case the passive holding of a domain name can amount to bad faith registration and use The passive holding of a domain name amounts to bad faith when it is difficult to

contact the trade mark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith paragraph 3.2 WIPO Overview 2.0 The WIPO Overview 2.0 further states The panel must examine all the circumstances of the case to determine whether the

is in bad faith for her passive holding of a Domain Name confusingly similar to a famous trademark under the principle first enunciated in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 In that seminal case the

faith and that its continuing passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith Complainant s trade names and marks are widely known and therefore it is highly unlikely that Respondent was unaware of Complainant s trademark when

s registration and use and/or passive holding of the disputed domain name containing Complainant s protected mark was in bad faith DISCUSSION Paragraph 15 a of the Rules instructs this Panel to decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and

Moreover the so called passive holding of a domain name does not per se eliminate a finding of bad faith In this connection the Panel refers to the relevant section of the WIPO Overview 2.0 which reads as follows 3.2 Can there be use in bad

to any active website However passive holding does not exclude a finding of registration or use of a domain name in bad faith See Produits Berger v Lay Tee Ong WIPO Case No DAU2004-0008 and Mr Jean Heitz v Truly Natural Products PTY Limited/ Mr

is not actively used The mere passive holding of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy Thirdly Respondent has engaged in a pattern of registering domain names preventing Complainant from reflecting its trademarks in

the disputed domain name is passive holding and supports a finding of bad faith registration and use under Policy Paragraph 4 a iii DCI S.A v Link Commercial Corp D2000-1232 WIPO Dec 7 2000 concluding that Respondent s failure to make an active