of WIPO panelists the passive holding of the domain name quilvest-lu.com is also sufficient to constitute acting in bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainants � contentions 6 Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4

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

contend the sort of passive holding that was found in Telstra Corporation Ltd v Nuclear Marshmallows D2000-0003 WIPO Feb 18 2000 and does not evidence such an attempted dialog or such a passive holding and even if the Complaint does

this is a case of so-called passive holding as was considered in the case of Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 In that case a critical question the panel considered might apply to an unused domain name

combination of Respondent s passive holding of the domain name transparent attempt to sell the domain name and indifference to GoDaddy.com s parking Complainant s competitors websites sufficient to establish the bad faith registration and use of

This demonstrates the passive holding of the domain name by the Respondent Complainant tried to contact Respondent multiple times in an attempt to come to an agreement without having to bring the dispute to Arbitration On February 28 2007

that after the respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name for five years its unsupported self-serving allegations alone are insufficient to establish that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name

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 Boeing Co v Bressi D2000-1164 WIPO Oct 23 2000 finding no rights or legitimate interests

can be inferred from the passive holding of the domain name for almost two years prior to the Complainant �s application to register its CREDITKEEPER mark and the fact that no active use of the disputed domain name was attempted until after

domain name resolves to a passive holding page with automated links to various third-party sites and a search engine Searching for pharmaceuticals with the search engine takes the visitor to a site with links to Complainant s competitors

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

resolved to a Register.com holding page which contained sponsored links and stated � www.merckblog.com � is coming soon to Register.com � At the time of filing the present Complaint the disputed domain name remains linked to a holding page

concludes that Respondent passive holding of the domain name does not establish rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 a ii Moreover Respondent posted a statement offering to sell the disputed domain name The Panel finds

to an active website as the passive holding of a Domain Name does not preclude a finding of bad faith Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 February 18  2000 In sum the Panel finds that the Complainant has

to be considered as a case of passive holding which corresponds to an active use cf Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 telstra.org American Home Products Corporation v Haymont Veterinary Clinic WIPO Case

fair use after seven years of passive holding Consequently the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name C Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4 b of the Policy provides an illustrative but not

that Respondent has been passively holding the disputed domain name for almost three years and it has been held that a passive holding is evidence of a lack of legitimate interests B Respondent The following is a summary of the facts

combination of Respondent s passive holding of the domain name transparent attempt to sell the domain name and indifference to GoDaddy.com s parking Complainant s competitors websites sufficient to establish the bad faith registration and use of

industry worldwide Whether passive holding of a domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use may depend on the reputation of the trademark to which the domain name at issue is confusingly similar to or identical In case the trademark

name in addition to the passive holding of the domain name reveal that Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith This third prong that the Panel considers however is two-part Bad faith registration and bad faith use A