presume that Respondent is holding the disputed domain name passively Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name does not demonstrate a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 c iii See Am Home Prod Corp

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 D 2000-0003 In addition it would

Trademark License Agreements Passive holding of a domain name may satisfy the requirements of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy DCI S.A v Link Commercial Corp D2000-1232 WIPO Dec 7 2000 Respondent s passive holding of the domain name satisfies the

mark Further Respondent s passive holding of the domain names suggests that it registered the domain names for the purpose of selling them to Complainant for profit or to Complainant s competitor to disrupt Complainant s business Such passive

is therefore whether the passive holding of the domain name can be considered to be registration and use in bad faith taking into account all circumstances of the present case In that context it has been convincingly argued in Telstra Limited

27 2000 The leading case on passive use Telstra Corp Ltd v Nuclear Marshmallows D2000-0003 WIPO Feb.18 2000 emphasized that all the circumstances of the case must be considered In that case passive holding was held to amount to acting in bad

S.A panel and find that the passive holding of the domain name by the Respondent amounts to the Respondent acting in bad faith Complainant also cites Red Nacional De Los Ferrocarriles Espanoles v Ox90 WIPO Case No D2001-0981 November 21 2001

domain name whatsoever By passively holding the domain name Respondent has demonstrated that it has no rights or interests in respect of the name and that it will not use the domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to

with the domain name and that passive holding of a domain name permits an inference of registration and use in bad faith The Panel finds that Policy Paragraph 4 a iii has been satisfied DECISION Having established all three elements required under

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 No D 2000-0055 D2000-0098 Thus the Panel concludes that the domain name was registered and

their domain name is being passively held Their emails state that the page has no content and is not being use for anything at all Complainant submits that passive holding of a domain name for a substantial period of time can be taken into

the fact that Respondent hold passive websites under the contested domain names gives the wrong impression to the users of the Internet that the new company does not have a current presence on this media a behaviour that is able to create confusion

resolve to any www site This passive holding of the domain names can in certain circumstances be evidence of use in bad faith In Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 February 18 2000 the panelist noted that t

the Panel finds that such passive use is evidence that Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith See DCI S.A v Link Commercial Corp D2000-1232 WIPO Dec 7 2000 concluding that Respondent s passive holding of the

against the Respondent The passive holding of a domain name may constitute bad faith use when taking into consideration the overall context of the Respondent s behavior E.g Ferrari S.p.A v JK Marketing WIPO Case No D2001-1003 WIPO October 8 2001

decisions have held that passive holding as well as active use of a domain name may constitute use as referred to in the third element registration and use in bad faith provided other examples of bad faith are present WIPO Case No D2000-0003

February 18 2000 finding that passive holding of a domain name is evidence of bad faith Leland Stanford Junior Univ v Zedlar Transcription & Translation FA 0006000094970 NAF July 11 2000 Revlon Consumer Prods Corp v Yosef WIPO Case No D2000-0468

the Panel found that the passive holding of a domain name with absolute knowledge of the damages that such conduct causes to the legitimate owner of a trademark constitutes a continuous use with bad faith of the domain name 7 Decision As the

the use since even the mere passive holding of a domain that is in conflict with the trademark of a third party also represents a bad faith use because it prevents the legitimate and true holder of the trademark to access the Net with the generic

See e.g Charles Jourdan Holding AG v AAIM D2000-0403 WIPO June 27 2000 finding it appropriate for the panel to draw adverse inferences from Respondent s failure to reply to the Complaint Respondent has not made any use of the voodoodolls.com