case what circumstances of passive holding other than those identified in paragraphs 4 b i iii of the Policy can constitute that the domain name is being used by the Respondent in bad faith The Panel considers that the sum of the following

s service mark and the passive holding of the disputed domain name is also evidence of bad faith B Respondent Respondent contends that Complainant does not own a registered trademark or service mark and the name is merely descriptive as it

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

name and instead has been passively holding onto it Without a response from Respondent the Panel accepts as true Complainant s assertion that Respondent is passively holding onto the disputed domain name See Vanguard Group Inc v Collazo FA

also relies on the concept of passive holding as established in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 However this principle does not apply to every instance of passive holding and the panel must examine all the

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 Am Online Inc v Kloszewski FA 204148 Nat Arb Forum Dec 4 2003 Respondent passive holding

No. D2000-0003 Under Telstra passive holding of a domain name can be considered as bad faith where it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the disputed domain name that would not be illegitimate The

The Respondent is merely holding the Domain Names passively Even though Complainant has invited the Respondent to transfer the Domain Names and has made several requests to settle this matter amicably the Respondent still failed to react to

with the domain name and that passive holding of a domain name permits an inference of registration and use in bad faith Respondent registered the disputed domain names with actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant s rights in the GALLUP

Bartlehiem N.V Morlanda Holdings B.V Cobblers Limited Pieds Nus SARL v Patrick Cox Case No. D2005-0586 1 The Parties The Complainant is Bartlehiem N.V of Curacao Netherlands Antilles Morlanda Holdings B.V of Amstelveen the Netherlands

purposes amounts to passive holding and supports a reasonable inference of bad faith registration and use pursuant to 4 a iii See DCI S.A v Link Commercial Corp D2000-1232 WIPO Dec 7 2000 concluding that the respondent s passive holding

past decisions have held that passive control of a disputed domain name constitutes bad faith The Complainant states that in Ubanque Saudi Fransi v ABCIB WIPO Case No. D2003-0656 Annex 27 to the Complaint a case similar to the case at hand the

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 Am Online Inc v Kloszewski FA 204148 Nat Arb Forum Dec 4 2003 Respondent passive holding

Panel finds that Respondent s passive holding of the barbie.org domain name for a period of more than two years constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See Mondich v Brown D2000-0004 WIPO Feb 16 2000 holding that

Panels have clearly held that passively holding a domain name since registration without development of the same does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 c i and thus does not constitute rights or

can see no bad faith in the passive holding of the Domain Name under the concrete circumstances Finally the Panel does not share Complainant �s view that Respondent tried to sell the Domain Name to the Complainant for an amount of money exceeding

be qualified as non use or passive holding by the Respondent or at least be placed in line therewith In previous decisions panelists have found that under certain circumstances non use of a disputed domain name may nevertheless constitute use in

was registered Respondent s passive holding of a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant s mark evidences bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See Caravan Club v Mrgsale FA 95314 Nat Arb Forum Aug 30

in the Panel �s view to passive holding behavior which has been repeatedly held by previous panels as evidence of use of the disputed domain name in bad faith As established in a number of prior cases the concept of �bad faith use � in

No. D2000-0003 Under Telstra passive holding of a domain name can be considered as bad faith where it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the disputed domain name that would not be illegitimate See