decisions have held that the passive holding of a domain name could support by clear and convincing evidence that a domain name is being used in bad faith However passive holding does not per se lead in a finding of bad faith use See Netflix Inc v

actively used and is being passively held Passive holding of a Disputed Domain Name knowing that it infringes another party s trade mark rights is evidence of bad faith As the Complainant s INTESA SANPAOLO mark is well known there is no

to active websites i.e are passively held As stated amongst others in Missoni S.p.A v William Song WIPO Case No D2012-0208 where the domain name at issue resolved to a landing page the passive holding of a domain name which has no other

that the Respondent present passive holding of the disputed domain names meets the requirement of paragraph 4 a iii that the disputed domain names are being used in bad faith by the Respondent based on the following circumstances i the

to any active website such passive holding of the disputed domain name in itself is not capable of creating any rights or legitimate interests see e.g Pepperdine University v BDC Partners Inc WIPO Case No D2006-1003 Archipelago Holdings LLC v

that such registration and passive holding thereafter constitutes registration and use in bad faith RESPONDENT The Respondent contends that the incorporation documents provided by the Complainant show that it did not come into existence until

domain names The Respondent passive holding of the disputed domain names is itself bad faith use in view of the renown of the Starwood Marks and the absence of likely legitimate uses by an unauthorized person like the Respondent B Respondent 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

Complainant notes that a passive holding of a domain name where there is no way in which it could be used legitimately can amount to use in bad faith Here the disputed domain name has no other meaning except for the reference to the name and

to any active website such passive holding of the disputed domain names in itself is not capable of creating any rights or legitimate interests on the part of the Respondent see e.g Pepperdine University v BDC Partners Inc WIPO Case No

D2000-0003 decision that the passive holding of a domain name registered in bad faith may constitute bad faith use within the meaning of the Policy More generally there is nothing in the file or in the Respondent known behaviour that is consistent

regard on the basis that the passive holding of a disputed domain name would be considered as evidence of bad faith after taking into account other cumulative circumstances Secondly and more significantly the Respondent is recorded as having

it was ascertained that passive holding of a domain name may be sufficient to constitute bad faith use taking into consideration the overall context of the Respondent behavior In the present case the following circumstances seem relevant in

to any active website such passive holding of the disputed domain names in itself is not capable of creating any rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent therein see e.g Pepperdine University v BDC Partners Inc WIPO Case No D2006-1003

established that the mere passive holding of a domain name may in appropriate circumstances be evidence not only of bad faith registration but also of bad faith use See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003

conclude that the Respondent passive holding of the Domain Name constitutes sufficient evidence of its bad faith use and registration B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant contentions 6 Discussion and Findings The Panel

to any active website such passive holding of the disputed domain name in itself is not capable of creating any rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent therein see e.g Pepperdine University v BDC Partners Inc WIPO Case No D2006-1003

Panels have also noted that passive holding or non-use of a domain name is evidence of a lack of legitimate rights in the domain name and this circumstance demonstrates bad faith The domain is connected with the LUFTHANSA combining the suffix xyz

also submits that the passive holding of the Domain Name by Respondent is an evidence of bad faith Finally according to Complainant there are several other decisions against Respondent in cybersquatting cases B Respondent Respondent did not

Nat Arb 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