domain Respondent has been passively holding the domain name in dispute since it was registered His explanation that he is engaged in plans to develop a non-commercial website is not credible Neither does this Panel accept Respondent s

email service Regarding the passive holding the Respondent �s argument that he has not passively used the domain name fails since the Respondent provides only one example of an email used under the disputed domain name Finally the Complainant

domain name amounts to passive holding by the Respondent in bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant �s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings In order for the Panel to decide to grant the remedy of transfer of a

intention appears to be a passive holding of the Domain Name in the interest of selling it Such behaviour which is preventing the Complainant from reflecting its trademark in a corresponding domain name indicates bad faith To summarize the

20 2002 finding respondent s passive holding of the domain name harleydavidon-r-us.com in bad faith because respondent s bad faith registration and use of additional domain names permits the inference that any future use of the passively-held

be analyzed as a �passive holding � of the domain name The Panel notes that in certain circumstances mere passive holding has been held to constitute use of the domain name in bad faith see for instance Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear

domain name amounts to passive holding by the Respondent and a finding in the circumstances of use in bad faith and also states that the postal address declared to the registrar is incorrect B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the

may be considered as passive holding for the following circumstances strength of the trademark CREDIT MUTUEL the Respondent has shown no good faith use of the Domain Names the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of conduct preventing the

that the Respondent �s passive holding of the Domain Name in dispute constitutes bad faith use The Respondent is not making any good faith use of the disputed Domain Name On the contrary the Domain Name points to an error page Furthermore

Forum DECISION Clear Blue Holdings L.L.C v NaviSite Inc Claim Number FA0701000888071 PARTIES Complainant is Clear Blue Holdings L.L.C Complainant represented by Jeffrey P Thennisch of Dobrusin & Thennisch P.C 29 W Lawrence Street Suite 210

the Respondent �s apparently passive holding of the disputed domain name for more than seven 7 years and expression of intent to use the domain name only after receiving notice of this dispute are of concern to this Panel But the fact remains that

faith through Respondent �s passive holding of the domain name B Respondent Respondent states that the case was filed in bad faith and that Complainant has deliberately abused the administrative proceedings in an attempt to reverse domain-hijack

domain name amounts to passive holding by the Respondent and a finding in the circumstances of use of bad faith � See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Parfums Christian Dior v 1 Net Power Inc WIPO

and that operation of a passive website is not a bona fide business use or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use Further Respondent registered the domain name dinersclub.mobi with actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant s trademarks

faith non-responsiveness and passive holding The Complainant argues first that the Respondent �s failure to respond to its cease-and-desist letter is sufficient to prove bad faith citing Policy decisions in which such non-responsiveness is

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

that the respondent s passive holding of the domain name satisfies the requirement of Paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy see also Mondich v Brown D2000-0004 WIPO Feb 16 2000 holding that the respondent s failure to develop its website in a two

further submits that passive holding of the domain name prevents Complainant from using the domain name in dispute in which Complainant �s registered trademark MUSTELA is the distinctive element B Respondent B.1 Identical or Confusingly

domain name amounts to passive holding by the 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

domain name amounts to passive holding by the Respondent and a finding in the circumstances of use of bad faith � See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 Parfums Christian Dior v 1 Net Power Inc WIPO