the domain name Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name for over a year demonstrates that it has no rights or legitimate interests in buycelebrexonline.com pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 a ii See Bloomberg L.P v Sandhu FA 96261

ago Although Respondent s passive holding of the domain name for seven months alone is not evidence of lack of rights or legitimate interests under Policy Paragraph 4 a ii other relevant circumstances corroborate such a finding Complainant has

amount of time to determine passive holding of a domain name See Meredith Corp v City Home Inc D2000-0223 WIPO May 18 2000 non-use of domain name for eight months is reasonable time to engage in research and development see also Mondich and Am

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

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

website Respondent s passive holding of the domain name fails to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests under Policy Paragraph 4 a ii Respondent has had ample opportunity to develop a function for the subject domain name by holding

Domain Names h A registrant s passive holding of a domain name registration as Respondent has done here can amount to use in bad faith taking into consideration the overall context of the Respondent s behavior Actual affirmative use of the domain

Furthermore Respondent s holding of the domain name for the past two years without developing a website is evidence of bad faith use pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See DCI S.A v Link Commercial Corp D2000-1232 WIPO Dec 7 2000 concluding

similar registration and passive holding of a domain name that fully incorporates the famous PHAT FARM mark suggests that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy Paragraph Paragraph 4 c i and iii See Pharmacia &

has registered and is holding a domain name corresponding almost exactly to a coined arbitrary term that has no meaning apart from Complainant s products Registration and passive holding of a domain name corresponding to a famous arbitrary

complainant s name Second the passive holding of a domain name as in this case constitutes bad faith in the use of the domain name This interpretation results from consolidated case law in view of the large number of decisions that have followed it

Regarding the allegation of passive domain name holding the Panel finds that indeed Respondent has not created a website under the domain name and has not used it in any way since its registration in October 31 2001 Although such passive holding

which it was found that the passive holding of the domain name by the Respondent amounted to the Respondent acting in bad faith as defined in the Policy A copy of this case is attached as Annex F to the Complaint Complainant also cites recent

D2000-0004 WIPO Feb 16 2000 holding that the Respondent s failure to develop its website in a two year period raises the inference of registration in bad faith see also DCI S.A v Link Commercial Corp D2000-1232 WIPO Dec 7 2000 concluding that the

circumstances of inaction passive holding other than those identified in paragraphs 4 b i ii and iii can constitute a domain name being used in bad faith This question cannot be answered in the abstract the question can only be answered in

to the circumstances of passive holding in the present case the Respondent has offered the Domain Name for sale and has engaged in a pattern of registering various domain names some of which are identical to registered trademarks for

Domain Name Respondent holding of the Domain Name is passive 5.6.Internet users will be misled to Respondent website through believing it is an authentic website of Complainant Users who search for Complainant trademark name are likely to be

of a domain name alone or passive domain name holding can support a determination of bad faith use see the Telstra decision WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and the numerous later cases to similar effect 6.4 Accordingly the Panel directs that all three

for over a year Respondent passive holding of the domain name demonstrates a lack of rights and legitimate interests See Ziegenfelder Co v VMH Enter Inc D2000-0039 WIPO Mar 14 2000 finding that failure to provide a product or service or develop

for the past three years Passive holding of a domain name permits an inference of registration and use in bad faith 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