Sept 6 2000 finding that mere passive holding of a domain name can qualify as bad faith if the domain name owner s conduct creates the impression that the name is for sale see also DCI S.A v Link Commercial Corp D2000-1232 WIPO Dec 7 2000

activity indicating the passive holding as ground of bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 15 a of the Rules A Panel shall decide a Complaint on

Nat Arb Forum May 6 2003 holding that Respondent s use of Complainant s mark and the goodwill surrounding that mark as a means of attracting Internet users to an unrelated business was not a bona fide offering of goods or services In addition

the Respondent makes use of passive holding because he has no own legitimate interest in the disputed domain name The previous owner and the Respondent are working in someway together The disputed domain name was transferred by the previous owner

host a website Respondent s passive holding constitutes use in bad faith pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 a iii Telstra Corp v Nuclear Marshmallows D2000-0003 WIPO Feb 18 2000 it is possible in certain circumstances for inactivity by the Respondent

and is that i Respondent is passively holding the domain at issue ii as per Northwest Racing Assocs LP v Quantu Mktg FA 95506 Yanni Mgmt Inc v Progressive Indus FA 95063 and CMG Worldwide Inc v Alessandro Bottai FA 94661 such passive holding

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

As a legal matter the act of passive holding domain names in this way constitutes their bad faith use under the Policy See e.g Pelle Pelle Inc v Nikolenko WIPO Case No D2002-1002 Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No

to use the domain name Such a passive holding furthermore coupled with blackmail must be regarded as a fraudulent use of the domain name The Panel is therefore convinced that the disputed domain was used by the Respondent in bad faith when the

s registration and nonuse i.e passive holding of the domain name harley-davidson-uk.net is in bad faith because 1 that Domain Name incorporates the famous Harley-Davidson Marks in entirety 2 it corresponds directly to the name of Harley-Davidson s

In fact not only should her passive holding of the domain name be regarded as sufficient in light of the decision Telstra Corporation Ltd v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and of many subsequent decisions but certainly such passive

in bad faith followed by a passive holding of a domain name when there is no way in which it could be used legitimately can amount to use in bad faith Telstra Corporation Ltd v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 In addition it would be

and a half years demonstrates passive holding of the domain name The passive holding of a domain name can constitute 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

can be considered as a passive holder of the domain name registration Nevertheless under appropriate circumstances such passive holding of a domain name registration can be said to constitute bad faith by the Respondent This result was well

regarding the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain names satisfy the requirements foreseen by the Policy As a consequence the Panel considers that the Complainant has been able to prove that the Respondent registered and has used

argues that the principle of passive holding espoused in Telstra Corporation Ltd v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 February 18 2000 is to be applied sparingly and not in a situation where a Respondent registers a domain name without

to use it His conduct and passive holding of the disputed domain name amounts to opportunistic bad faith The Panel finds that there is bad faith on the part of the Respondent 7 Decision For all the foregoing reasons in accordance with

cited the conclusion was that passive holding of a domain name may amount to use in bad faith but the Complainant argues in the alternative that in this case the holding could be considered as being somewhat active A visitor to the website at the

4 Factual Background AVENTIS Holding and its affiliate companies A.NATTERMANN & Cie Gmbh and AVENTIS PHARMA SA the Complainants in this administrative proceeding are leaders among the pharmaceutical companies in the world AVENTIS offers a wide

Panel finds that Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name and its apparent willingness to transfer the domain name to Complainant satisfy the bad faith requirement of the Policy See Caravan Club v Mrgsale FA 95314 Nat Arb Forum Aug