evidences a form of passive holding of the name which amounts to use in bad faith Respondent The only effective response which the Respondent has made to the Complaint is the email of October 9 2001 to the Center stating I will transfer

WIPO Case No D2000-0164 The passive holding of the domain name embratel.com with absolute knowledge of the damages that such conduct causes to the legitimate owner of EMBRATEL trade mark constitutes a continuous use with bad faith of the domain

almost two years 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

or fair use Furthermore passive holding of a domain name creates a presumption that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 a ii See e.g Flor-Jon Films Inc v Ron Larson FA 94974 Nat Arb Forum July 25

in a situation involving a passive holding of the domain name registration Of course these three paragraphs require additional facts an intention to sell rent or transfer the registration for paragraph 4 b i a pattern of conduct preventing a

held that even inaction or passive holding of a domain name would amount to bad faith 6.16 Apart from the above the Panel would like to rely upon Cellular One Group v Paul Brien WIPO Case No D2000-0028 where it was observed The Panel however

of the commercial enterprise holding the domain name It is clear that so-called passive holding of a domain name that is registration of a domain name alone can support a determination of bad faith use see the Telstra decision D2000-0003 and the

the domain names in issue passively Holding domain names passively does not create rights to or legitimate interests in the domain names because passively holding infringing domain names is not a fair use See BMW AG v Loophole D2000-1156 WIPO

using it in bad faith by the passive holding of a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant ROMI mark Upon considering all the circumstances of a case use of a domain name in bad faith may be inferred from the passive holding of a

contends that inaction i.e passive holding of a Domain Name can amount to bad faith and refers to previous decisions of administrative panels to support this assertion As indicated above to date the panel has received no Response from Unimetal

Respondent registration and passive holding of the lexissytems.com domain name supports a finding of bad faith pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See Alitalia Linee Aeree Italiane S.p.A v Colour Digital D2000-1260 WIPO Nov 23 2000 finding bad

also of the opinion that the passive holding of the Domain Name since its registration combined with the lack of evidence provided by the Respondent to demonstrate the good faith registration or use of this Domain Name all infer bad faith pursuant

the Respondent has adopted a passive attitude regarding the web page linked to the disputed domain name by just redirecting the Internet users to the web pages linked to the domain name visual.com Such an attitude must be considered as a behaviour

SKECHERS mark Respondent passive holding of the domain name may be interpreted as bad faith and therefore satisfies 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

Respondent registration and passive holding of the pennfederal.com domain name supports a finding of bad faith pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See Alitalia Linee Aeree Italiane S.p.A v Colour Digital D2000-1260 WIPO Nov 23 2000 finding bad

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

may be demonstrated by mere passive holding of the domain name iv Complainant further submits that Respondent is guilty of a pattern of bad faith conduct by reference to Respondent admission of copyright infringement in the TOEFL materials and

No D2000-0003 Charles Jourdan Holding AG v AAIM WIPO Case No D2000-0403 Nintendo of America Inc v Pokemon WIPO Case No D2000-1230 Neuberger Berman Inc v Alfred Jacobson WIPO Case No D2000-0323 and Telstra Corporation Ltd v Brett Micallef WIPO Case

of twenty months amounts to passive holding which while being fully cognizant of the Complainant s trademark right evidences bad faith use Various panels have held that passive holding coupled with knowledge of trademark rights of a complainant

names for profit Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name also establishes Respondent s lack of rights or legitimate interests with respect to the oddworldinhabitants.com domain name See American Home Prod Corp v Malgioglio