come within the principle of passive holding in Telstra Corp Ltd v Nuclear Marshmellows supra because it was not the intention of the Respondent to hold the domain name passively but rather it was the original intention of the Respondent to

ADMINISTRATIVE Pneus-online Holding contre Thierry Maille Litige n° D2008-1098 1 Les parties La requérante est la société Pneus-online Holding Genève Suisse représentée par CMS Bureau Francis Lefebvre Lyon France Le défendeur est Thierry

faith The Respondent has been holding the disputed domain name passively since 1996 Such passive holding for more than 12 years implies bad faith registration and use According to previous UDRP cases the Respondent has a reputation of registering

evidence from Respondent passive holding of a Domain Name does not constitute �legitimate non-commercial or fair use � � See Euromarket Designs Inc v Domain For Sale VMI WIPO Case No D2000-1195 noting that respondent was a passive holder of

it is well established that passive holding of a domain name may equal active use see Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Jupiters Limited v Aaron Hall WIPO Case No D2000-0574 Ladbroke Group Plc v Sonoma

domain name the Respondent passive holding of the disputed domain name equals active use because there exists no relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent the disputed domain name was registered many years after the Complainant

and for sale constitutes passive holding in the pattern of the widely followed previous case of Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The trademark RED BULL is fanciful and distinctive there being no such

name Indeed the so-called passive holding of the domain name made by the Respondent together with other circumstances listed in the decision Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 mentioned by the Complainant

the present case amounts to passive holding As was noted in Telstra supra such a passive holding together with other factors indicating that the domain name was registered in bad faith may be relied on to show that the domain name is also being

content constitutes inactive holding of the domain name Such inactive holding is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy Paragraph 4 c i nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy Paragraph 4 c iii See TMP Int l

with the domain name and that passive holding of a domain name permits an inference of registration and use in bad faith The Panel concludes that Complainant has sufficiently established Policy Paragraph 4 a iii DECISION Having established all

The Panel finds that the passive holding of a domain name that is identical to Complainant s mark is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to UDRP Policy Paragraph 4 c i and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of

does This can be considered passive holding of the domain names in dispute as outlined in other WIPO cases Comerica Inc v Horoshiy Inc WIPO Case No D2004-0615 Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria S.A v N/A WIPO Case No D2003-0996 Telstra Corporation

Forum Dec 4 2003 Respondent passive holding of the aolfact.com domain name for over six months is evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name Also Respondent is not commonly known by the

is today engaged in the passive holding of the Domain Names This under certain circumstances may support an inference of bad faith Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 This is particularly so when no

Respondent maintains he was passively holding the domain name with the intent to gift his son with a �narnia.mobi � email address on the child �s eleventh birthday According to the Respondent there simply is no evidence that he registered the

constituted passive holding of the website and was conducted in bad faith B Respondent Respondent did not substantively reply to Complainant �s contentions even though proper notice of these proceedings was given Nonetheless

concludes that Respondent passive holding of the domain name does not establish rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 a ii Based on the evidence in the record the Panel finds that Complainant has made a prima facie case

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

No D2006-1214 2 The continued passive holding of the domain name The foregoing conclusion makes it unnecessary to consider the second limb of the Complainant �s contention that the continued passive holding of the domain by the Respondent will