registering it in May 2004 Passive holding is not considered a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 c i or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy

than eighteen months ago Such passive holding equates to bad faith use and registration under Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See Phat Fashions v Kruger FA 96193 Nat Arb Forum Dec 29 2000 finding bad faith under Policy Paragraph 4 a iii even though

name in good faith such passive holding amounts to bad faith use and registration under Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See Phat Fashions v Kruger FA 96193 Nat Arb Forum Dec 29 2000 finding bad faith under Policy Paragraph 4 b iv even though

name in good faith such passive holding amounts to bad faith use and registration under Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See Phat Fashions v Kruger FA 96193 Nat Arb Forum Dec 29 2000 finding bad faith under Policy Paragraph 4 b iv even though

Paragraph 4 a iii through its passive holding of the name See DCI S.A v Link Commercial Corp D2000-1232 WIPO Dec 7 2000 concluding that Respondent s passive holding of the domain name satisfies the requirement of Paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy see

name in good faith such passive holding equates to bad faith use and registration under Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See Phat Fashions v Kruger FA 96193 Nat Arb Forum Dec 29 2000 finding bad faith under Policy Paragraph 4 a iii even though

over a year ago Such passive holding equates to bad faith use and registration under Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See Phat Fashions v Kruger FA 96193 Nat Arb Forum Dec 29 2000 finding bad faith under Policy Paragraph 4 a iii even though

�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 � See Red Bull v Harold Gutch WIPO Case No D2000-0766 September 22 2000 The Panel therefore holds

Hôtels Méridien v LaPorte Holdings Inc Case No. D2004-0849 1 The Parties The Complainant is Société des Hôtels Méridien Paris France represented by Cabinet Degret France The Respondent is LaPorte Holdings Inc Los Angeles California

Complaint Respondent has been passively holding the disputed domain names and has not connected them to active websites The Panel accepts this assertion as true Passively holding a domain name does not evidence rights or legitimate interests in a

All this together with the passive holding of the domain names at issue the continuous providing of false and misleading information inter alia in connection with their registration and the absence of evidence in rebuttal see Paragraph 14 b of

4 c iii Respondent s passive holding of the skindeep.com domain for eight years is concrete evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name Respondent has not been commonly known by the domain name

D2000-0004 February 16 2000 holding that Respondent �s failure to develop its website in a two year period raises the inference of registration in bad faith While passive holding of a domain name for two years raises the presumption of bad faith

is used in bad faith since passive holding can be construed as use in bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant �s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings Paragraph 15 a of the Rules instructs the Panel as to the

name is being used by way of passive holding Passive holding has been recognized as sufficient in a number of cases In particular the decision in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 cited by the Complainant

with the domain name and that passive holding of a domain name permits an inference of registration and use in bad faith Complainant has established Policy Paragraph 4 a iii DECISION Having established all three elements required under the ICANN

WIPO Case No D2000-0003 passive holding of the domain name without use in commerce may support a holding of use in bad faith The Respondent alias Isidro Sentis and Lsites has already been recognized as having registered and used the domain

under the UDRP inactivity or passive holding can in specific cases be regarded as �use � within the meaning of Paragraph 4 a iii which the Panel finds to be the case here The Panel therefore finds that the requirements of Paragraph 4 a iii are

Panel finds that Respondent s passive holding of the domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See Clerical Med Inv Group Ltd v Clericalmedical.com D2000-1228 WIPO Nov 28 2000 finding that merely

It is established that such passive holding is insufficient to demonstrate that the domain name is used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to paragraph 4 c i of the Policy or a legitimate noncommercial or fair