Use in Bad Faith Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name can alone create the inference of bad faith registration and use See Clerical Med Inv Group Ltd v Clericalmedical.com D2000-1228 WIPO Nov 28 2000 finding that merely holding

domain name and hold the site passively See DCI S.A v Link Commercial Corp D2000-1232 WIPO Dec 7 2000 concluding that the Respondent s passive holding of the domain name satisfies the requirement of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy see also Caravan

and Use in Bad Faith Passive holding is prima facie proof of bad faith under Policy Paragraph 4 a iii Since Respondent has not used the lehmanbrothers.com domain name since 1997 the Panel finds that Respondent is passively holding the

name This is referred to as passive holding Passive holding fails to establish rights or legitimate interests Although Respondent has held the domain name for a short time Respondent s conduct with respect to the other two domain names

utilizing the domain name Passive holding of a domain name permits an inference of registration and use in bad faith See DCI S.A v Link Commercial Corp D2000-1232 WIPO Dec 7 2000 concluding that the Respondent s passive holding of the domain

circumstances Respondent has passively held the bluefusion.info domain name for over 13 months The Panel finds that Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name satisfies the requirement of bad faith registration and use under Policy

Respondent s warehousing or passive holding constitutes bad faith registration and use Complainant requests the Panel to direct the Registrar to transfer the disputed domain names to it B Respondent Respondent concedes that Complainant has rights

in Bad Faith Respondent has passively held its infringing domain name registration for over two years Given its confusing similarity with Complainant s family of ENTERPRISE marks the Panel holds that Respondent s passive holding amounts to bad

unused is no defense mere passive holding of a domain name when accompanied by other circumstances proving the Respondent s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the domain name and the bad faith registration of the same domain names is to

the Complainant notes that a passive holding of a domain name in itself constitutes bad faith use The Respondent contends that she had all along planned to use the Domain Name to market products and services very different from the Complainant s

use easily accommodates the passive holding of domain names Domain name registrations are exclusive rights and their holders achieve the exclusion of all others from the registration of identical domain names simply by virtue of their holding

legitimate use but to hold it passively is evidence of bad faith 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

circumstances Respondent s passive holding of an infringing domain name evidences bad faith use and registration under Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See Telstra Corp v Nuclear Marshmallows D2000-0003 WIPO Feb 18 2000 finding that it is possible in

the Respondent has engaged in passive holding of the Domain Name 6 Discussion and FindingsParagraph 15 a of the Rules instructs the Panel to decide the Complaint on the ground of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the

faith but that Respondent s passive holding of that domain name amounts to bad faith use under the Policy See Telstra Corp v Nuclear Marshmallows D2000-0003 WIPO Feb 18 2000 finding that it is possible in certain circumstances for inactivity by

have already discussed the passive holding of a domain name and found that this can constitute bad faith use inter alia Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 In the current case the Respondent has registered

b i iii Policy involve also a passive holding of the domain name registration even though these provisions requires additional facts But it must be recalled that the circumstances listed under paragraph 4 b i iv Policy are without limitation that

rather than exclusive Passive holding of a domain name is one such circumstance not listed in Policy Paragraph 4 b that Panels have found does demonstrate bad faith registration and use Therefore Respondent s failure to associate the

panels have found that the passive holding of a domain name may give rise to an inference that the Respondent registered the site for the purpose of sale In Vivendi Universal v Jay David Sallen WIPO Case No D2001-1121 the panel stated that mere

use easily accommodates the passive holding of domain names Domain name registrations are exclusive rights and their holders achieve the exclusion of all others from the registration of identical domain names simply by virtue of their holding