Respondent is benefiting from passive advertising or referral income derived from click-generated traffic which is not a bona fide offering of goods or services Complainant further contends that Respondent is not commonly known in any manner by its

to be correct here The passive holding of a domain name by the Respondent to prevent the Complainant from exploiting the domain name itself is an example of bad faith In essence the Respondent must have known of the Complainant ™s trademark

by the Respondent However passive holding of a disputed domain name can in appropriate circumstances constitute bad faith registration and use and the Panel is of the view that such circumstances exist in this case The leading decision on bad

that the Respondent is a passive holder of the Disputed Domain Name which in certain circumstances can be evidence of use in bad faith In EuroMarket Designs Inc v Domain For Sale VMI WIPO Case No 2000-1195 the panel clearly stated that passive

even the Respondent ™s passive holding of the disputed domain names would not preclude a determination of bad faith registration and use in the circumstances of this case As noted in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO

the Policy are not exhaustive Passive holding of a domain name could in some circumstances amount to bad faith The Panel was referred to Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 where a well-known mark was

assume them to be correct The passive holding of a domain name to divert Internet users searching for websites relating to the Complainant to the Respondent ™s website or prevent the Complainant from exploiting the domain name himself is evidence

and remained so during the passive holding of the domain name Accordingly the Panel concludes that that present case comes within the principles laid down by the above decisions particularly Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows

Akbank Turk A.S v Beroca Holdings B.V.I Limited Case No D2008-0572 1 The Parties Complainant is Akbank Turk A.S of Istanbul Turkey represented by Istanbul Patent & Trademark Consultancy Ltd Turkey Respondent is Beroca Holdings B.V.I Limited of

Respondent appears to be holding the passive website to prevent Complainant from acquiring it Respondent ™s use of the domain name for such purposes is not a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of

that Respondent ™s passive holding of the domain name suggests that it registered the domain name for the purpose of selling it to Complainant for profit Moreover under these circumstances the Panel agrees that there is no conceivable

Panel finds that Respondent s passive holding and failure to use the seemoreputter.com domain name for an active use evidences registration and use in bad faith under Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See DCI S.A v Link Commercial Corp D2000-1232 WIPO Dec 7

for the proposition that passive holding of a domain name is supportive of bad faith The Respondent is not passively holding the domain name Moreover the panelist in Telstra was careful to note that passive holding alone is not a basis for a

this particular Complaint the passive holding of the domain name by the Respondent amounts to the Respondent acting in bad faith It concludes that it does The particular circumstances of this case which lead to this conclusion are i the Complainant

would not be entertained The passive holding of a domain name while knowing that someone else ™s trademark rights are being infringed as a result is evidence of bad faith Here the Respondent must have known that it was unlawfully using the

domain names in dispute the passive holding of the domain names by Respondent in the face of all of the circumstances gives rise to the bad faith registration and use of the domain names See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO

and subsequent cases on passive holding see Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America v Wreaks Communications Group WIPO Case No D2006-0483 The Complainant ™s XENADRINE RFA-1 trademark is inherently distinctive and enjoys a

28 2000 finding that merely holding an infringing domain name without active use can constitute use in bad faith see also Cruzeiro Licenciamentos Ltda v Sallen D2000-0715 WIPO Sept 6 2000 Mere passive holding of a domain name can qualify as bad

is engaged in a form of passive bad faith use of the Domain Name and that it should be inferred that Respondent had prior knowledge of the mark TGV prior to registering the Domain Name It is now well established that both active use and

PANEL DECISION Alfred Berg Holding Aktiebolag v P D S Case No D2008-0566 1 The Parties The Complainant is Alfred Berg Holding Aktiebolag Box 893 101 37 Stockholm Sweden represented by Setterwalls Advokatbyrå Sweden The Respondent is P D S