on-line presence and the passive holding of a domain name is indicative of bad faith registration and use B Respondent The Respondent contends that the domain name gatorade.ro was registered in good faith on August 8 2005 Also it contends that

and concludes that the passive holding of the domain name amounts to the registration and use of the domain name in bad faith The Panel notes in passing it appears that in the past also domain names with the mark REDIFF have been created by

with the domain name and that passive holding of a domain name permits an inference of registration and use in bad faith see also Mondich v Brown D2000-0004 WIPO Feb 16 2000 holding that the respondent s failure to develop its website in a two year

However the Telstra holding does not turn on the use of false contact information rather the central holding of that case is that passive holding of a well-known mark can itself suffice to establish bad faith registration and use See

dealership in Brooklyn After passively holding the domain name for more than five years the Respondent began using the domain name to attract Internet visitors to its Vespa Soho website at a time when the Complainants had entered into discussions

by the Complainant and Boyner Holding jointly this credit card incorporates a loyalty point scheme and promotional discount advantages The Complainant has heavily promoted the Fish Card through advertising materials print broadcast cable media and

an operational website hence passively holding the name since its registration over five years ago The Panel views this passive holding in and of itself as also evidencing bad faith use and registration Hence the Panel concludes that the

have already provided that passive holding can qualify as bad faith use See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The Telstra panel however provided that additional circumstances are required to show bad

have already provided that passive holding can qualify as bad faith use See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The Telstra Panel however provided that additional circumstances are required to show bad

coupled with the Respondent passive holding of the domain names establishes bad faith registration and use under the Policy B Respondent The Respondent asserts that the disputed domain names are neither identical nor confusingly similar to the

whether mere registration and passive holding of the disputed domain names can constitute use The answer to this question is of course yes registration of a domain name may constitute use of that domain name But the Panel must still determine

concludes that the Respondent passive holding of the disputed domain name satisfies the requirement for use in bad faith See e.g Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 There is no evidence in the case that refute

The Respondent passive holding of the domain name is an indication of bad faith the Respondent registered the domain name for the purpose of confusing Internet users and divert them to another website for its own benefit the

further argues that the passive holding of the domain name and the fact that no possible legitimate use exists also constitute evidence of bad faith use and registration In its supplemental filing the Complainant argues that since the

the disputed domain so-called passive holding as set forth in the landmark decision Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Considering the above the Panel finds that the Complainant has presented sufficient

contact the trademark holder Passive holding Consensus view The lack of active use of the domain name does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith The panel must examine all the circumstances of the case to determine whether respondent is

of anything other than passive holding of a domain name Rebutting a prima facie case of lack of rights or legitimate interests through legitimate noncommercial or fair use appears to require an active use of the disputed domain name or an

mehr aktiv genutzt auch eine passive Nutzung könne aber bösgläubig sein Außerdem sei Paragraf 4 b der Richtlinie nicht abschließend vielmehr ergäbe sich daraus ein allgemeines Konzept der bösgläubigen Nutzung In diesem Fall läge eine

faith in conjunction with the passive holding of the disputed domain name Since the Respondent knew of Turkcell at the time of registration the Complainant argues that the Respondent act of registering turkcell.info which wholly incorporated the

Decisions finding that the passive holding of a domain name by a Respondent coupled with a knowledge of a Complainant s trademark is contrary to the Policy but that does not seem to be the situation here as Respondent was not made aware of