the alternative Respondent s passive holding of the domain names constitutes evidence of bad faith Complainant accuses Respondent of a pattern of bad faith conduct by registering multiple domain names incorporating the LIZ TAYLOR mark Complainant

for over 5 years Respondent passive holding of the disputed domain name demonstrates a lack of rights and legitimate interests Complainant solicited the transfer of the domain name on January 5 2012 anticipating a reasonable out of pocket payment

Aug 12 2008 stating that passive use of the domain name can be considered bad faith use see also Alitalia Linee Aeree Italiane S.p.A v Colour Digital D2000-1260 WIPO Nov 23 2000 holding that when a respondent does not make a use of the domain

moment It is a clear case of passive holding Wipo consensus view on this matter is clearly indicated by in its Overview which states The panel must examine all the circumstances of the case to determine whether the respondent is acting in bad

Forum Sep 2 2004 finding that passive holding of a domain name that is identical to the complainant s mark does not demonstrate a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of a domain name Respondent s

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

in bad faith Respondent s passive holding of the potterybarnworld.com domain name con-stitutes bad faith registration and use of the domain Complainant s mark is famous and Respondent knew of Complainant s mark both when it registered and while

Infringing Domain Name Such passive holding of the Infringing Domain Name itself an alternate basis for concluding that Respondent lacks a legitimate interest in the Infringing Domain Name HEB Grocery Company L.P v Eric Gonzales FA 1421851 Nat

The Respondent s apparent passive holding of some of the disputed domain names does not preclude a finding of bad faith registration and use in the circumstances of this case See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No

in the SWAROVSKI trademark holding registrations worldwide including in China since 1987 where the Respondent appears to be located The dominant part of the disputed domain name swarovski-forsale.com incorporates the Complainant s well-known and

is effectively engaged in passive holding of the disputed domain name within the terms originally established by Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The concept of passive holding typically implies

thesis that Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name and that it has been registered speculatively with the primary purpose being the sale of the domain for an amount far in excess of out-of-pocket expenses Therefore Respondent

to any active website However passive holding of a domain name is constitutive of bad faith WIPO Case No.D2000-0003 Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows Decision For all the following reasons the Complaint is Accepted and the disputed

Panel should state that the passive holding constitutes a bad faith use of the disputed domain name To conclude that the passive holding constitutes bad faith registration in the present case the Panel should additionally consider that the

holds this domain name passively The Panel finds that such passive holding amounts to use in bad faith because the domain name includes the well-known ACCOR trademark the Respondent provided no evidence or any actual or contemplated good

examples recognize that a passive holding of a domain name registration can in certain circumstances constitute using the domain name in bad faith The concept of a domain name being used in bad faith is not limited to positive action Telstra

argues that the Respondents passive holding of the disputed domain names isabelmarantsneaker.com isabelmarantbasket.com and isabelmarantshoes.com constitutes bad faith For all of the above reasons the Complainant requests the transfer of 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

disputed domain name beyond passive holding of the registration This Panel finds that Complainant has therefore succeeded in the second element of the test in Policy Paragraph 4 a ii Registration and Use in Bad Faith The disputed domain name was

and Respondent s current passive use of the domain name through a parking page does not preclude the possibility that it has rights or legitimate interests in the domain name Respondent registered the domain name with the intention of