based on non-use or so-called passive use The Administrative Panel has considered whether in the circumstances of this particular Complaint the passive holding of the domain name by the Respondent amounts to the Respondent acting in bad faith It

the domain now resolves to a holding page with links to directory pages and a forum containing postings solely by the Respondent However the Panel finds that such passive use of the domain is not a bona fide offering of goods and services or any

panels have concluded that passive holding in a relation to a domain name registration can in certain circumstances constitute a domain name use in bad faith Guerlain S.A v Peikang WIPO Case No D2000-0055 Complainant submits that given the fame

Case No D2003-0484 AutoNation Holding Corp v Rabbea Alawneh WIPO Case No D2002-0058 Delikomat Betriebsverpflegung Gesellschaft m.b.H.v Alexander Lehner WIPO Case No D2001-1447 These authorities also support the notion that the party seeking to

then contends that the passive holding of the name following registration without use also amounts to bad faith It draws attention to the fact that the Respondent reference on its website to events exclusively within the jurisdiction of the

Respondent former use and now passive holding of the disputed domain name satisfies the requirements of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith 7 Decision For all the foregoing reasons

under the Policy even passive holding of the disputed domain names would constitute under the particular circumstances of this case bad faith use in the sense of the Policy Indeed it is not possible to conceive of any plausible or credible

PANEL DECISION Koç Holding A.S v KEEP B.T Case No D2009-0938 1 The Parties The Complainant is Koç Holding A.S of Istanbul Turkey represented by Istanbul Patent & Trademark Consultancy Ltd Turkey The Respondent is KEEP B.T of Ankara

to contemplate the concept of passive use and that inaction or passive holding can constitute the use of a domain name in bad faith The panel found that each case must be evaluated on its facts to determine whether the passive use constituted use

show that the Respondent passive holding amounts to acting in bad faith The Administrative Panel has considered whether in the circumstances of this particular Complaint the passive holding of the domain name by the Respondent amounts to the

case what circumstances of passive holding other than those identified in paragraphs 4 b i iii of the Policy can constitute that the domain names are being used by the Respondent in bad faith The Panel considers that the sum of the following

well established a respondent passive holding of a domain name may constitute bad faith use The seminal decision on point is Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 February 18 2000 In Telstra the panel held that

of the proposition that the passive holding of a domain name after registration can constitute bad faith registration within the meaning of the Policy Further decisions are cited in this respect including Veuve Cliquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee en

Complainant asserts that the passive holding of the Domain Name coupled with the Respondent association with the Complainant competitor the Respondent abrupt and inexplicable refusal to enter into a previously negotiated agreement with the

went on to argue that passive holding of a domain name without actual use may constitute bad faith The Complainant alleged that the Disputed Domain Names have not been put into any active use In view of the Respondent lack of response the

an active website The passive holding for so many years does not constitute bona fide use of the domain names pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 c iii see Hewlett-Packard Co & Hewlett-Packard Dev Co L.P v Shemesh FA 434145 Nat Arb Forum Apr 20

be considered as so called passive holding Paragraph 4 b of the Policy states four non-exclusive circumstances which if found to be present may be deemed to provide evidence of bad faith in registering and using the domain name Paragraph 4 b iii

advantage of this mark The passive holding of the disputed domain names by the Respondent for more than 8 years since their registration See Guerlain S.A v Peikang WIPO Case No D2000-0055 together with the other circumstances of the present case

the Respondents inaction and passive holding of the website over a period of three years was evidence of illegitimate purpose and bad faith The Complainant states that it is recognized that use in bad faith is not confined to the time of

is presently engaged in passive holding a practice which has been held to constitute use of domain names in bad faith Telstra Corporation Limited supra Jupiters Limited v Aaron Hall WIPO Case No D2000-0574 cited in Société pour l'Oeuvre et