the domain name constitutes a passive use of the domain name Numerous decisions have held that passive holding of a domain name constitutes bad faith The evidence offered by the Complainant from the WhoIs database listing for DomainMerchants.com a

is within the concept and holding that bad faith was shown by passive holding of a domain name see also Trump v Rafaeli FA 100238 Nat Arb Forum Nov 6 2001 stating that registration and passive holding support finding of bad faith Mariott Int l

D2000-0003 and D2000-0055 the passive holding in relation to a domain registration can in certain circumstances constitute a domain name used in bad faith b Respondent The Respondent did not file any Response to the Complaint and was notified of

28 2000 finding that merely holding an infringing domain name without active use can constitute use in bad faith DCI S.A v Link Commercial Corp D2000-1232 WIPO Dec 7 2000 concluding that the Respondent s passive holding of the domain name

is within the concept and holding bad faith was shown by passive holding of a domain name see also Trump v Rafaeli FA 100238 Nat Arb Forum Nov 6 2001 stating that registration and passive holding support finding of bad faith Mariott Int l Inc v

the disputed domain names its passive holding of domain names which incorporate a world famous trademark is not a bona fide offering of goods or services and does not demonstrate a legitimate noncommercial or fair use Respondent does not have

proposition that inaction or passive holding of a domain name registration can constitute using a domain name in bad faith In that case the Panel found the respondent s holding of the domain name registration and failure to transfer it to the

domain names and this passive holding is done in bad faith In this connection it should be noted that this panel finds that passive use is also use within the meaning of the Policy See WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Telstra Corporation Limited v

Nat Arb Forum Aug 29 2000 passive holding of PEROTSYS.COM for a year found to constitute evidence of bad faith The Caravan Club v Mrgasale FA 95314 Nat Arb Forum Aug 30 2000 passive holding of THECARAVANCLUB.COM for five months permits an

the domain name constitutes a passive use of the domain name Numerous decisions have held that passive use as well as active use of a domain name would constitute use as referred to in the third element registration and use in bad faith provided

disputed domain name but to passively hold it Such passive holding demonstrates bad faith within the meaning of Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See Alitalia Linee Aeree Italiane S.p.A v Colour Digital D2000-1260 WIPO Nov 23 2000 finding bad faith where

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 Euromarket Designs Inc v Domain For Sale VMI D2000-1195 WIPO Oct 26

finds that Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name offers evidence of its bad faith registration and use of the name See Mondich & Am Vintage Wine Biscuits Inc v Brown D2000-0004 WIPO Feb 16 2000 holding that the Respondent s

is also found in Respondent s passive holding of the domain name for a period of approximately one and one-half years 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

site without content The mere holding of a domain name is regarded as passive use and thus may constitute use within the meaning of the Policy see WIPO Case D2000-0003 and several subsequent decisions This is also true in this case The Panel

4 a ii of the Policy Finally holding a website passively is not considered a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of a domain name Respondent also fails in this manner to satisfy Policy Paragraph 4 c iii See Ziegenfelder Co v VMH Enter Inc

also accuses Respondent of passive holding of the domain name even though Respondent only registered the domain name a short period prior to the dispute between the parties and commencement of this proceeding Complainant fails to demonstrate

domain names Respondent s passive holding with an offer to sell is also evidence of Respondent s registration of and offer to sell the domain names in bad faith B Respondent did not file a Response in this proceeding FINDINGS Complainant has

for the proposition that the passive holding of a domain name can in certain circumstances amount to the domain name being used in bad faith Telstra v Nuclear Marshmallows In that case the Panel found that it was not possible to conceive of any

WIPO Case No D2000-0003 passive holding of the domain name without use in commerce may support a holding of use in bad faith By not submitting a response Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstances which could demonstrate that it did