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 Complainant has established Policy Paragraph

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 Vestel Elektronik Sanayi ve Ticaret AS v Kahveci D2000-1244 WIPO Nov 11 2000 Merely

suggest that Respondent is holding the diablitosunderwood.com domain name for any non-infringing purpose Without an indication that Respondent registered the domain name with the intention of using it for a legitimate purpose the Panel finds

of the Domain Names and its passive holding of them constitutes evidence of bad faith Finally the Respondent has provided false information in its registration of the Domain Names in that its address telephone number and fax number are all false

Consulting has been passively holding the domain name since it has not been used to promote any type of business for the past five years See Household Int l Inc v Cyntom Enters FA 95784 Nat Arb Forum Nov 7 2000 holding that the respondent

circumstances that amount to passive holding of the domain name � B Respondent The Respondent presents a number of arguments in response to the Complainant �s contentions These arguments include quotations used when quoting directly from the

Panel finds that Respondent s passive holding of the enterprise-car-rental-news.info and enterprise-rent-a-car-news.info domain names for more than five months constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See DCI S.A v

PANEL DECISION Wüstenrot Holding AG v Maximus Holding Inc Case No D2005-0942 1 The Parties The Complainant is Wüstenrot Holding AG Ludwigsburg Germany represented by Maiwald Patentanwalts GmbH Germany The Respondent is Maximus Holding Inc

that the Respondent �s passive holding of the domain name in this particular case satisfies the requirement of paragraph 4 a iii that the domain name �is being used in bad faith � by Respondent 7 Decision For all the foregoing reasons in

case where the many cases on passive holding as proof of bad faith should be invoked and followed per the Complainant �s contentions First this is because a well-established trademark usually is required for bad faith to issue from 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 Clerical Med Inv Group Ltd v Clericalmedical.com D2000-1228 WIPO Nov 28 2000 finding that merely holding an

concludes that Respondent passive holding of the domain name does not establish rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 a ii Furthermore no affirmative evidence has been set forth showing that Respondent is commonly known

suggest that Respondent is holding the disputed domain name for any non-infringing purpose Without an indication that Respondent registered the domain name with the intention of using it for a legitimate purpose the Panel finds that Respondent s

domain name amounts to passive holding which is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 c i or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 c iii See Melbourne IT Ltd v Stafford

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

implication that Respondent s passive holding of the domain name evidences bad faith registration pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See DCI S.A v Link Commercial Corp D2000-1232 WIPO Dec 7 2000 concluding that the respondent s passive holding of

that the Respondent �s passive holding of some of the disputed domain names is likewise evidence of bad faith The Complainant asserts that the Respondent �s actions are comparable to the pattern of conduct that emerges from the numerous UDRP

concludes that Respondent passive holding of the domain name does not establish rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 a ii In addition bearing in mind Respondent s conduct in connection with the registration and the use

may be considered as holding said rights or interests Those circumstances are To have used the Domain Name or to have made demonstrable preparations for its use before any notice of the dispute in connection with a bona fide offering of

operational site constitutes passive holding which has been regarded by many panelists as bad faith use under appropriate circumstances Respondent �s bad faith is evidenced also by the fact that Respondent provided a false address to the Registrar