is not active hence this is a passive holding case which further indicates the Respondent �s bad faith The Respondent has registered the domain name in dispute to create the impression that its business is in some way associated with the

is Applepie Solutions Limited Holding the disputed domain name for five years without genuine use is prima facie evidence of a lack of rights or legitimate interests Using the domain name with only a holding page further illustrates the lack of

squatting LDLC.com vs LaPorte Holdings WIPO case No D2005-0687 Société Française du Radiotéléphone � SFR vs LaPorte Holdings WIPO case No D2004-0926 Claire �s Stores Inc Claire �s Boutiques Inc CBI Distribution Corp vs LaPorte Holdings WIPO

domain name constitutes passive holding The Panel finds that Respondent has held and not used the domain name to such an extent that it has exhibited bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See Telstra Corp v

names the Respondent �s passive holding of the domain names would not preclude a finding of bad faith registration and use under the circumstances of this case In Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No. D2000-0003

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 that there is nothing in the record including the

MORGAN STANLEY marks and such passive holding has been held to be evidence of bad faith B Respondent 1 Complainant s charge of confusingly similarity is not challenged by Respondent 2 With respect to Complainant s charges that Respondent does not

Forum Dec 4 2003 Respondent passive holding of the aolfact.com domain name is evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name see also Pharmacia & Upjohn AB v Romero D2000-1273 WIPO Nov 13 2000 finding no rights

Respondent �s inactivity or passive holding of the domain name may prove that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith � WIPO Case No. D2001-0065 Atlantic Recording Corporation v Paelle International The Respondent has

name is not active hence is a passive holding case Respondent offered the disputed domain name for sale to Complainant for an amount in excess of his out of pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name Respondent has registered the

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 no affirmative evidence has been set forth showing

Panel finds that Respondent s passive holding and failure to come forward with demonstrable preparations to use the broadscom.com domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use See Telstra Corp v Nuclear Marshmallows D2000-0003 WIPO Feb

website and argues that passive holding of a domain name equates with active use of a domain name B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant �s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings A Identical or Confusingly Similar The

Respondent appears only to be passively holding the disputed domain at present does not preclude a finding of bad faith registration and use under the circumstances of this case Under certain circumstances bad faith may be inferred from a

that the respondent s passive holding of the domain name satisfies the requirement of Paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy see also Cruzeiro Licenciamentos Ltda v Sallen D2000-0715 WIPO Sept 6 2000 Mere passive holding of a domain name can

Regarding the Respondent �s passive behavior as an evidence of his bad faith we want to recall the following case WIPO Case No. D2000-0823 El Rincon del Vago S.L y otros v NETTIKA  S.L Annex M holding in Paragraph 6.3.3 d that � �.the mere

argues that Respondent is passively holding the domain name Respondent has not come forward with any demonstrable preparations to use the domain name for a purpose not in competition with Complainant Thus the Panel does not find a bona fide

that the respondent s passive holding of the domain name satisfies the requirement of Section 4 a 3i of the Policy see also Clerical Med Inv Group Ltd vs clericalmedical.com D2000-1228 WIPO Nov 28 2000 finding that merely holding an

admits to is tantamount to passive holding Passive holding supports a reasonable inference of bad faith registration and use Respondent Respondent has already provided considerable evidence of the generic nature of the mark in question The

Feldschlösschen Getränke Holding AG v John De Souza wird festgehalten dass diese Voraussetzungen lediglich auf sogenannte aktive Webseiten anwendbar sind Wieso zwischen aktiven und passiven Webseiten unterschieden wird ist allerdings nicht