No D2000-0003 that even the passive holding of an offending domain name may constitute bad faith use and all evidence here points to such bad faith use Respondent Alan s fallback position as expressed in its replies to the cease and desist letter

primarily contends that this passive holding of the disputed domain name amounts to bad faith In Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 the circumstances that indicated that passive holding amounted to use of

name was registered for holding purposes and has not been used for bona fide offering of goods and services Furthermore the disputed domain name is not used for personal interest or for the presentation of products or activity OSRAM GmbH v

should be considered as passive holding According to Paragraph 4 b ii of the Policy the disputed domain name was registered for holding purposes and has not been used for bona fide offering of goods and services Furthermore the disputed

UDRP panels have found that passive holding for much shorter periods of time can support a finding of bad faith See e.g Kimmelrama Inc Lotzi Inc Hachacha Inc v 1315 East B Brett Warren WIPO Case No D2009-0556 June 18 2009 passive holding of the

considers the Respondent s passive holding of the domain name and prevents the owner of the well-known trademark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name and accordingly paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy provides additional support

the principle that passive holding of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a well-known and distinctive trade mark may constitute bad faith under the third limb of paragraph 4 a of the Policy That decision has evolved into a line

its registration and passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name It is not plausible that the Respondent registered and passively held the Disputed Domain Name other than for an illegitimate purpose This Panel therefore concludes that a

WIPO Case No D2000-0003 passive holding can in certain circumstances constitute bad faith use of a domain name Similar circumstances are present in this case That the Complainant EVIAN mark has a notorious world wide reputation and is widely

in bad faith followed by a passive holding of a domain name when there is no way in which it could be used legitimately can amount to use in bad faith Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 In addition it

from the Respondent s passive holding of the Domain Name together with the absence of any conceivable good faith use of it the timing of the registration and the Respondent s failure to explain his purpose in registering the Domain Name

have ruled consistently that passive holding of domain names can constitute bad faith use per Policy paragraph 4 a iii See Vertical Solutions Management Inc v webnet-marketing inc NAF Claim No 95095 The Respondent has not developed the website

anche la mera detenzione c.d passive holding di un nome a dominio costituisce utilizzo in malafade ai sensi della Policy Inoltre se ciò non bastasse il Collegio rileva un elemento ulteriore e fondamentale a riprova della malafede del Resistente

s official site Such passive holding can amount to bad faith use B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4 a of the Policy requires a complainant to prove that the

the SEDO website and that the passive holding of the domain name prevents the Complainant from using the disputed domain name for its own commercial purposes and has the effect of disrupting the business of the Complainant iv Remedies requested In

4 b Respondent s continued passive holding of the Domain Name constitutes evidence of bad faith In addition Respondent solicited offers from others to purchase the Domain Name The fact that Respondent responded to Complainant s inquiry rather

content However Respondent passively held the website for over a year According to the Panel passive holding of the website for over a year evidences a lack of legitimate rights See Americor Mortgage Inc v Bowman FA 93548 NAF April 22 2002

appropriate circumstances passive holding evidences bad faith use In the instant case all of the facts referred to above are present and therefore the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith

s rights Despite the passive holding by the Respondent the effect of the Domain Name being held by the Respondent can still be a diversion of consumers seeking the Complainant s official site B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to

the disputed domain name is passively held Previous panels have asserted that absent some contrary evidence from Respondent passive holding of a domain name does not constitute legitimate non-commercial or fair use See Teachers Insurance and