with the domain name and that passive holding of a domain name permits an inference of registration and use in bad faith see also Compagnie Generale des Matieres Nucleaires v Greenpeace Int l D2001-0376 WIPO May 14 2001 holding that despite the

domain name as a case of passive holding given that the disputed domain name is not as of the date of this decision being actively used in any manner by the Respondent As per the WIPO UDRP Panelists � consensus view passive holding does not

In regard to the apparent passive holding of the disputed domain name the Panel finds it difficult to conceive of any good faith use by the Respondent that would not conflict with the Complainant �s trademark rights in XYLAMON Finally

is based on Respondent s passive holding of the domain names at issue Yet Complainant has established that the domain name at issue is in use and contains sponsored links Complainant cannot have it both ways the acts that establish lack of

held that a �Respondent �s passive holding of the domain name demonstrates a lack of rights and legitimate interest � DLJ long term Investment Corporation v Dina Khuball a/k/a Jeana Khuball NAF Case No FA104598 Registered and Used in Bad Faith

thus far has been in effect a passive use analogous to that discussed in inter alia Ameriquest Mortgage Co v Jason Banks WIPO Case No D2003-0293 In that case and in inter alia Telstra Corp v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 other panels

that the respondent s passive holding of the domain name satisfies the requirement of Paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy see also Clerical Med Inv Group Ltd v Clericalmedical.com D2000-1228 WIPO Nov 28 2000 finding that merely holding an

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 Ltd v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 In addition it would be

with Respondent s current passive holding and evidence of false contact information submitted by Respondent cause the Panel to find that Complainant has satisfied Policy Paragraph 4 a iii DECISION Having established all three elements required

cases be found to amount to passive holding by Respondent and a finding in the circumstances of use of bad faith See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallos WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Parfums Christian Dior v 1 Net Power Inc WIPO Case No

Complainant �s allegation of passive holding against the Respondent cannot be made out Even if it could and there is no such persuasive evidence passive holding is not in itself evidence of bad faith In this connection it is relevant that the

concludes that Respondent passive holding of the domain name does not establish rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 a ii see also Am Online Inc v Kloszewski FA 204148 Nat Arb Forum Dec 4 2003 Respondent passive holding

names in dispute and mere passive holding thereof constitutes bad faith See Aeroturbine Inc v Domain Leasing Ltd NAF Case No NAF FA0093674 bad faith registration followed by inaction or passive holding constitutes bad faith use of a domain name

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 see also Bloomberg L.P v Sandhu FA 96261 Nat Arb Forum Feb 12 2001

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

concludes that Respondent passive holding of the domain name does not establish rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 a ii see also Am Online Inc v Kloszewski FA 204148 Nat Arb Forum Dec 4 2003 Respondent passive holding

�s registration and passive holding for more than seven years of a domain name that is identical to the Complainant �s well-known mark The domain name currently displays no active webpage or content other than an �Error � message The

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

that the Respondent has been passively holding that one name for nearly two years since its registration on September 27 2005 rather than actually using it is of no consequence as the Panel views this passive holding as evidencing bad faith use

concludes that Respondent passive holding of the domain name does not establish rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 a ii The Panel finds that Policy Paragraph 4 a ii has been satisfied Registration and Use in Bad