be found in the Respondent s passive holding of the website for four years the images of the town of Granarolo dell Emilia have come from that town s website the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant s rights especially after he

in finding that m ere passive holding of a domain name can qualify as bad faith if the domain name owner s conduct creates the impression that the name is for sale Thus Complainant s passive holding of the domain name coupled with its

that the respondent s passive holding of the domain name satisfies the requirement of Paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy see also Alitalia Linee Aeree Italiane S.p.A v Colour Digital D2000-1260 WIPO Nov 23 2000 finding bad faith where the

6 2003 and therefore has been passively holding the disputed domain names for two-and-a-half years Furthermore Respondent has made no demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain names and given the widespread recognition and fame of

only positive action but also passive holding see the landmark case Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 In view of the above the Panel finds that the Respondent has registered and used the domain names in bad

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

period of non-use i.e passive holding and in spite of repeated demands from the Complainant to transfer the name in exchange for reimbursement of her costs of registration the Respondent offered the name for sale through an auction site for

of the IKEA mark Also the passive holding of the disputed domain name by the Respondent for more than 7 years since its registration See Guerlain S.A v Peikang WIPO Case No D2000-0055 together with the circumstances of the case represent in the

argues Respondent has been passively holding the tuffronts.com and tuffronts.net domain names since 2003 because Respondent s domain names resolve to a blank page and there is no evidence that Respondent used the domain name previously

with the domain name and that passive holding of a domain name permits an inference of registration and use in bad faith see also DCI S.A v Link Commercial Corp D2000-1232 WIPO Dec 7 2000 concluding that the respondent s passive holding of the

show that the Respondent ™s passive holding amounts to acting in bad faith The Administrative Panel has considered whether in the circumstances of this particular Complaint the passive holding of the domain name by the Respondent amounts to the

facts of a complaint the passive holding of domain names by Respondent amounts to Respondent acting in bath faith Telstra Corp Ltd v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 Compaq Computer Corp v Boris Beric WIPO Case No. D2000-0042

in bad faith and that its passive holding constitutes sufficient evidence of bad faith use Consequently the Panel finds that the Complainant has proved the third element required in paragraph 4 a of the Policy 7 Decision For all the foregoing

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

concludes that Respondent passive holding of the domain name does not establish rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy Paragraph4 a ii Respondent has failed to prove any demonstrable preparations to use the salesmentor.com domain

also submits that the mere passive holding of a domain name cannot cure the bad faith of the registrant of a domain name In this respect the Complainant refers to the first decision that addressed this issue Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear

BFGOODRICH mark resolves to a holding page Respondent registered the domain name on July 30 2002 and therefore has been passively holding the disputed domain name for almost four years Panels have held that the passive holding of a domain name for

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

Respondent has for years been passively holding the name which when accessed leads only to an error message Finally Complainant asserts that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith Complainant argues that the passive holding

of the domain name and the passive holding of it However the Panel is not prevented by this inactivity on the part of the Respondent from reaching conclusions on this or any other issue On the particular issue the WIPO Overview supra suggests a