PepsiCo Inc v LaPorte Holdings Inc and Pepsiemployment.com alkla Henry Chan WIPO Case No. D2005-0087 Ameriquest Mortgage Company v Ling Shun Shing WIPO Case No. D2003-0294 B and JGarcia S.L Arnedo Spain v Gorila WIPO Case No D2004-1071

its other marks amounts to passive holding which here unquestionably 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

use it The Panel finds that passive holding under the Policy is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See Telstra Corp v Nuclear Marshmallows D2000-0003 WIPO Feb 18 2000 I t is possible in certain circumstances

Even if this were a case of passive holding � p assive holding of a domain name neither precludes nor compels a finding of bad faith � Levi Ray & Shoup Inc v Capitol Systems Corporation WIPO Case No D2005-0700 August 31  2005 The Policy aims at

connects with the domain name Passive holding of domain name permits an inference of registration and use in bad faith Accordingly in light of Respondent s constructive knowledge of the USO mark Respondent s passive holding of the Domain Name is

believes that Respondent is passively holding the domain name this being evidence of registration and use in bad faith Inaction e.g passive holding can in certain circumstances constitute bad faith use of a domain name See Telstra Corp Ltd v

with the domain name and that passive holding of a domain name permits an inference of registration and use in bad faith see also Telstra Corp v Nuclear Marshmallows D2000-0003 WIPO Feb 18 2000 I t is possible in certain circumstances for

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

with the domain name and that passive holding of a domain name permits an inference of registration and use in bad faith see also Telstra Corp v Nuclear Marshmallows D2000-0003 WIPO Feb 18 2000 it is possible in certain circumstances for inactivity

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

that the respondent s passive holding of the domain name satisfies the requirement of Paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy see also Mondich v Brown D2000-0004 WIPO Feb 16 2000 holding that the respondent s failure to develop its website in a two

suggest that Respondent is holding the disputed domain name for any non-infringing purpose Without any indication that Respondent registered the identical domain name for a legitimate purpose the Panel finds that Respondent s passive holding of

to the conclusion that the passive holding of the disputed domain names by the Respondent amount to the domain names having been registered and used in bad faith First of all the word HABBO is an invented word and is not one a trader would

domain name and has thus been passively holding the domain name The Panel finds that Respondent has not used the disputed domain name and therefore further concludes that Respondent s passive holding of the domain name does not constitute a bona

that Respondent is therefore passively holding the domain name If the Panel finds that Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name the Panel may further conclude that Respondent s non-use of the domain name is not in connection with a

with the domain name and that passive holding of a domain name permits an inference of registration and use in bad faith Furthermore Respondent registered the moneycometh.net domain name with actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant s rights

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

Panel finds that Respondent s passive holding of the advantacards.com domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See DCI S.A v Link Commercial Corp D2000-1232 WIPO Dec 7 2000 concluding that the respondent

Respondent s registration and passive holding of the domain name in dispute translates a bad faith intent to confuse the consuming public from misdirected traffic in search of Complainant s official websites Respondent Respondent does not claim to

alleges Respondent �s passive holding of the Domain Name for nine years with no use whatsoever is evidence of its bad faith The record cannot however support a conclusion of bad faith registration in this case To this day Complainant