Complainant has not argued passive holding in the context of a lack of rights or legitimate interests Furthermore Respondent has only held the registration rights since September 2002 and thus such a finding would be tenuous Thus the Panel finds

of the Respondent The mere passive holding of a domain name is not sufficient to infer bad faith especially in the present case where the domain was only registered on September 1 2002 However the overall circumstances in addition to the passive

not be active use but may be passive holding such as the mere registration of the domain name which prevents the use of the same domain name by another Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 February 18 2000

Complainant has invoked the Passive Holding doctrine to show bad faith use of the domain name generalitatdecatalunya.info This Panel agrees By applying the Telstra factors see Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows supra this Panel

the Panel stated that The passive holding of the domain name for a significant period with knowledge of the Complainant trademark rights in the name has been held to constitute bad faith See Arturo Salice S.p.A v Paul Izzo & Company WIPO Case

northbrookcourt.com and his passive holding of the domain name constitutes evidence of bad faith The domain name also never resolved to an active web site or other online presence from the time that Mr Cieplinski registered northbrookcourt.com in

the Respondent Respondent s passive holding of the domain name constitutes bad faith The Complainant requests the domain name be transferred to its benefit B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion

Panel holds that Respondent s passive holding of the domain name evidences bad faith use pursuant to 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

Panel finds that Respondent s passive holding of the infringing yahooonlinecasino.com evidences bad faith use and registration See Phat Fashions v Kruger FA 96193 Nat Arb Forum Dec 29 2000 finding bad faith under Policy Paragraph 4 b iv even though

4 c of the Policy Its passive holding of the disputed domain name confirms that it has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name Bad Faith The Respondent registered the disputed domain name with constructive notice of

to positive actions and the passive holding in relation to a domain name can constitute also another ground of use of a domain name in bad faith WIPO cases n° D2000-0055 D2000-0098 The Respondent refused to give more information to the

in Bad Faith Respondent has passively held the domain name since the November 8 2001 registration Respondent s passive holding constitutes bad faith under Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See DCI S.A v Link Commercial Corp D2000-1232 WIPO Dec 7 2000

of Respondent constitutes passive holding and therefore does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 a ii See Vestel Elektronik Sanayi v Ticaret AS v Kahveci D2000-1244 WIPO Nov 11 2000 finding that merely

be ruled similarly to the holding in a decision rendered in WIPO Case No DTV2002-0006 in a case related to the domain name europe2.tv which can be compared with this case since the name Europe 2 is the name of a French radio as famous as the

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 Globosat Programadora Ltda v Artmidia Comunicacao Visual Criacao E

in bad faith followed by a passive holding of a domain name can amount to use in bad faith when there it appears that there is no way in which such name could ever be used legitimately in relation to a business or offering of goods or services

behavior is considered to be passive holding and evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to 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

that under some circumstances passive holding of a domain name can constitute bad faith use of that domain name This principle was first set out in the decision Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 February 18

the disputed domain name Such passive holding of the domain name constitutes evidence of bad faith registration and use See Mondich and American Wine Biscuits Inc v Brown D2000-0004 WIPO February 16 2000 it is possible to infer from this failure of

they also note that passive holding of a domain name can constitute use in bad faith Finally the Complainants allege that the Respondent has tried to take unfair advantage of the reputation of their trademarks by creating a likelihood of