In addition Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name because it was registered in 1999 and still has not been developed Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name is evidence that Respondent lacks rights or

Panel Registrant has made a passive holding of the domain name In accordance with that theory use of a domain name in bad faith can be found when there are circumstances leading to passive holding among those circumstances amounting to the use in

The Panel finds that such passive holding equates to bad faith use and registration under Policy Paragraph 4 a iii 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

Finally Respondent is passively holding the googoljobs.com domain name The disputed domain name was registered on February 25 2003 and the record fails to show that Respondent has made any demonstrable preparations to use it Passive holding

No D2001-0256 Respondent s passive holding of the domain name provides support for a determination of bad faith registration and use B Respondent s contentions i The Respondent has filed no response and therefore does not dispute that the

to use its mark and that passive holding does not constitute a legitimate use of the name The Complainant in its words argues Upon information and belief the Respondent does not own or conduct business under the term Lipitorinfo and the

in subsequent UDRP decisions passive holding of a domain name can in certain circumstances satisfy the requirement of paragraph 4 a iii that the domain name is being used in bad faith by the Respondent This Panel finds that the registration and

domain name Volvo Trademark Holding AB v e-motordealer Ltd WIPO Case No D2002-0036 at § 6 March 22 2002 holding that there is no vested right of anybody particularly not of a competitor to incorporate a famous trademark in its domain name in a

also of the opinion that the passive holding of the Domain Name since its registration no use other than linking it to other web sites combined with the lack of explanation or evidence provided by the Respondent to demonstrate the good faith

appropriate circumstances passive holding evidences bad faith use e.g WIPO Case Nos D2002-0366 Pfizer Inc v Order Viagra Online and D2000-0003 Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows iv Information about Complainant s marks The Panel

is commonly referred to as passive holding Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain names is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy Paragraph 4 c i or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy Paragraph 4

names are either linked to holding pages or to no active websites The Respondents intend to use all of the domain names to link to either the Centre Le Corbusier or the Le Corbusier Center Foundation websites in the future There is nothing

it was ascertained that a passive holding of a domain name may be sufficient to constitute bad faith taking into consideration the overall context of the Respondent behavior Therefore the Panel concludes that the requirements of paragraph 4 a

to prove bad faith A passive holding of a domain name may prove that the domain name has been registered and are being used in bad faith The Complainant sent the Respondent a cease and desist letter dated January 30 2003 The Respondent

The Respondent appears to be passively holding the disputed domain name The First Complainant has built up a substantial reputation in the name N KIDS particularly in the United States although it does sell products in the N KIDS range throughout

which have held that the passive holding of a domain name can establish use of a domain name in bad faith Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Medisite SARL v Interllisolve Limited WIPO Case No D2000-0179

s business of acquiring and holding expired domain names has not been shown by any extrinsic evidence to be an abuse of the ICANN rules the Panel looked to Complainant s extrinsic evidence that Respondent s passive holding and offer to sell the

under some circumstances the passive holding of a domain name could constitute a bad-faith use As here the respondent in that case defaulted However the Telstra panel concluded that the respondent was surely aware of the complainant mark Further

� which may be deemed as passive holding absent any offer of products or services or any information on any topic Several UDRP decisions have held that the passive holding of a domain name that incorporates a well-known trademark without

concludes that Respondent s passive holding of the aolamerica.com aoltexas.com aolnewyork.com aolnewport.com aolpalmbeach.com aolfashion.net aolmodels.com aoldate.com aolnightclubs.com aolhotel.com and aolmatch.net domain names are evidence that