name in addition to the passive holding of the domain name reveal that Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith The Panel finds that Policy Paragraph 4 a iii has been satisfied DECISION Having established all three elements

domain name chrysler.ro is passively held from its registration and passive holding of a domain name for a period of 28 months or more gives rise to an inference that the holder has no bona fide intent to use the domain name and thus no

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 The Panel finds Complainant satisfied Policy Paragraph 4 a iii

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 The Panel finds Complainant satisfied Policy Paragraph 4 a iii

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

evidence of bad faith The passive holding of a Domain Name has been held to evidence bad faith use of the names where there are other factors Telstra Corp v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 DCI S.A v Link Commercial Corp WIPO Case

have recognized however that passive holding of a domain name can constitute bad faith use see Jupiters Limited v Aaron Hall WIPO Case No D2000-0574 August 10 2000 Ladbroke Group Plc v Sonoma International LDC WIPO Case No D2002-0131 April 10 2002

Therefore Respondent s holding of the Domain Name during that time without having it resolve to a webpage constitutes bad faith use of the Domain Name Further even if it had no control over the Domain Name during the past three years

in mark GOOGLE amounts to passive holding which here also reflects bad faith use Various panels including this one have held that passive holding coupled with a respondent s knowledge of trademark rights of a complainant in the name being so

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 satisfied Policy Paragraph 4 a iii DECISION Having established all three elements

interests The significance of passive holding of a domain name is more commonly considered in the context of the third element of the Policy where the prevailing view is that passive holding is not evidence of either good or bad faith but must be

the Respondent �s current passive holding of the disputed domain name highlandstreetfoundation.org does not preclude a finding of bad faith under the Policy The Complainant has submitted a sworn statement from its legal counsel who states that

Mazda � In Charles Jourdan Holding AG v AAIM WIPO Case No D2000-0403 the panel held that a lack of rights or legitimate interest could be found where 1 Respondent is not a licensee of Complainant 2 Complainant �s rights in its related trademarks

any use of the domain name Passive holding is not considered a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy Paragraph4 c i Based on its lack of rights in the Hotwire Marks and lack of affiliation with

disputed domain name Their passive holding of the disputed domain name satisfies the bad faith requirement of the Policy See DCI S.A v Link Commercial Corp D2000-1232 WIPO Dec 7 2000 concluding that passive holding of the domain name by the

Despite Respondent s current passive holding of the disputed domain name it is nonetheless possible to impute that Respondent may have registered the disputed domain name with the intention of taking advantage of Complainant s affiliate marketing

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 The Panel finds Complainant satisfied Policy Paragraph 4 a iii

with the domain name and that passive holding of a disputed domain name permitted an inference of registration and use in bad faith See also Clerical Med Inv Group Ltd v Clericalmedical.com D2000-1228 WIPO Nov 28 2000 finding that holding an

such non-use constitutes a passive holding only for the purpose of extracting a large amount of money from Complainant In relation to Policy Paragraph 4 a iii Complainant contends that Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad

bad faith use This is because passive holding of a domain name which could only be used for an illegitimate purpose � e.g to attract Internet users to the DOT EASY AUSTRALIA website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant �s