s mark along with its passive holding of the domain name is considered evidence of bad faith See E & J Gallo Winery v Oak Inv Group D2000-1213 WIPO Nov 12 2000 finding bad faith where 1 Respondent knew or should have known of the

that Respondent is engaged in passive holding of the domain name It has been found that the mere registration of a domain name is not enough to create rights and legitimate interests See Bloomberg L.P v Sandhu FA 96261 Nat Arb Forum Feb 12 2001

diverting customers and holding a passive website is not a bona fide offering of goods pursuant to Policy 4 c i See Toronto-Dominion Bank v Karpachev D2000-1571 WIPO Jan 15 2001 finding no rights or legitimate interests where Respondent

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

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

also Samsonite Corp v Colony Holding FA 94313 Nat Arb Forum Apr 17 2000 finding that evidence of bad faith includes actual or constructive knowledge of a commonly known mark at the time of registration Finally Respondent s passive holding of the

of the UDRP in cases of passive holding of domain names first provided in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and in a number of following decisions such as e.g Ingersoll-Rand v Frank Gully WIPO Case No

use The domain name is being passively held Although a domain name holder is not under an affirmative duty to make use of a domain name the passive holding of a domain name for a substantial period of time is an additional consideration that can

of the submission that mere passive holding of a domain name may constitute bad faith use where the registrant has no legitimate interest in the trademarked term constituting the domain name The Complainant makes the following specific

s lengthy nonuse and passive holding of cnnarabic.com is further evidence of bad faith use of the domain name Respondent s holding of the domain name is now blocking CNN from using the domain name for legitimate business purposes

PANEL DECISION Vakko Holding Anonim Sti v Esat Ist Case No D2001-1173 1 The Parties Complainant is Vakko Holding Anonim Sti Istanbul a corporation organised and existing under the laws of Turkey Respondent is Esat Esat ist Istanbul Turkey

name in bad faith and its passive holding of the domain name prevents the Complainant from making commercial use of that mark as a web site address B Respondent The Respondent contends that the domain name at issue is totally different and

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

that the Respondent s passive holding of the domain name satisfies the requirement of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy see also Clerical Med Inv Group Ltd v Clericalmedical.com D2000-1228 WIPO Nov 28 2000 finding that merely holding an

show that the Respondent s passive holding amounts to acting in bad faith at paragraph 7.11 The Panel therefore concludes that the Respondent registered and has been using the Domain Name in bad faith 7 Decision In the light of the findings in

since that date amounts to passive holding The Complainant states various ICANN decisions support the view that passive holding can be evidence of bad faith citing to Casa Cor Promoções e Comercial Ltda vs Nelson Abras WIPO Case No D2001-0628

finds the Respondent lengthy passive holding of the domain name containing the Complainant famous mark to be registration and use in bad faith ICANN/WIPO Case No D2000-0004 Mondich and American Vintage Wine Biscuits Inc v Brown d/b/a Big Daddy

the business of a competitor Passive holding of a domain name can constitute use in bad faith particularly where the registrant has no bona fide use for the domain name and the only purpose appears to be to prevent a competitor from using the

the Respondent has acted with passive holding which has been repeatedly and consistently regarded by the Panels decisions as use in bad faith since the very early decision Telstra Corporation Ltd v Nuclear Marshmallows case D2000-0003 Therefore the

in STMicroelectronics.info Passive holding of STMicroelectronics.info combined with the absence of any evidence of an attempt to develop it indicates that Respondent was not making a bona fide offering of goods or legitimate or fair use of the