concludes that Respondent passive holding of the domain name does not establish rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 a ii There is no evidence on record that Respondent is commonly known by the tomleykis.com domain

domain name Thus Respondent s passive holding of the advantest.net domain name indicates registration and use in bad faith under Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See DCI S.A v Link Commercial Corp D2000-1232 WIPO Dec 7 2000 concluding that the respondent s

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

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

any purpose and is therefore passively holding them Panels have concluded that passively holding domain names does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 c i or a legitimate noncommercial or fair

Deutsche Telekom AG v Dexcom Holdings B.V Case No DTV2006-0001 1 The Parties The Complainant is Deutsche Telekom AG Bonn Germany The Respondent is Dexcom Holdings B.V Rotterdam Netherlands 2 The Domain Names and Registrar The disputed domain names

any evidence The Respondent passively held the Domain Name since its registration on October 21  2004 without posting any website Such passive holding of a domain name constitutes use of the Domain Name in bad faith Telstra Corp v Nuclear

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 a respondent s passive holding of the domain

the Panel finds that such passive holding is evidence of Respondent s lack of rights and legitimate interests pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 a ii See Am Online Inc v Kloszewski FA 204148 Nat Arb Forum Dec 4 2003 Respondent passive holding of

Further the Respondent �s holding of the contested domain name has been relatively passive in that the corresponding website contains but a simple text with two images and the odd comment regarding the origin and meaning of the term Hinano The

Etrangers à Monaco v Corril Holding N.V Case No. D2005-1342 1 The Parties The Complainant is Société des Bains de Mer et du Cercle des Etrangers à Monaco Monte Carlo Monaco represented by De Gaulle Fleurance & Associés France The Respondent

Company v Leighton Alan Holdings Claim Number FA0512000616915 PARTIES Complainant is State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company Complainant One State Farm Plaza A-3 Bloomington IL 61710 Respondent is Leighton Alan Holdings Respondent P.O

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

the disputed domain name This passive holding of a valuable trademark in this case well-known in its specialized medical market constitutes bad faith This is not one of the enumerated bad faith grounds under Paragraph 4 b i-iv of the Policy but

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 Furthermore the Panel finds that Respondent has failed to

� is empty The passive holding of a domain name can in certain circumstances be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith for the purposes of paragraph 4 a iii Only one of these circumstances paragraph 4 b

to positive actions and the passive holding in relation to a domain name can constitute use of a domain name in bad faith See France Telecom SA v France Telecom Users Group WIPO April 2 2002 finding that registration of france-telecom.com

finds that Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name to prevent Complainant from using the domain name and from changing Internet service providers Respondent s non-use of the domain name for more than two years does not

USFA Mark to host a passive web site is not a bona fide non-commercial or fair use within the meaning of the Policy and such passive holding of a web site is evidence that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain

� of both names but rather passive holding and thus further reflects bad faith B Respondent i Identical or Confusingly Similar The Respondent argues that for several reasons the Complainant has failed to meet its burden under paragraph 4 a 1 of