faith because Respondent is passively holding it 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 satisfies the requirement of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy see

PANEL DECISION Remy Cointreau Holding Company Remy Martin & Cie Cointreau SA v Greenhouse Inc Case No D2001-1085 1 The Parties The Complainants in this administrative proceeding are Remy Cointreau Holding Company Rue Joseph Pataa F-16100 Cognac

This Panel has found that the passive holding of a domain name for a period of time can be evidence of bad faith See Telstra Corp v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 February 18 2000 I t is possible in certain circumstances for

proof of bad faith was mere passive holding of a domain name can qualify as bad faith if the domain name owner conduct creates the impression that the name is for sale The Panel finds that such an impression is created by Mr Sallen reply to the

said domain name Respondent passive holding of the disputed domain names does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 c i See American Home Prod Corp v Malgioglio D2000-1602 WIPO Feb 19 2001

element Respondent denies passive use as alleged by Complainant Respondent says the evidence of the hosting arrangement for the @datatrail.com e-mail address is evidence of use Respondent further says that the UDRP merely says that passive

it was ascertained that a passive holding of a domain name may be sufficient to constitute bad faith taking into consideration the overall context of Respondent behavior In the present case the following circumstances seem relevant in this

Respondent registration and passive holding of the trumphotel.com domain name also supports a finding of bad faith See Alitalia Linee Aeree Italiane S.p.A v Colour Digital D2000-1260 WIPO Nov 23 2000 finding bad faith where the Respondent made no

can be inferred based on the passive holding and short time between registration and offer of sale to Complainant that the Respondent registered the domain names with the intention of selling them to the Complainant See Hewlett-Packard Co v High

address appears to indicate a passive holding of the domain name of the kind referred to in Telstra Ltd v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Respondent has failed to rebut Complainant prima facie showing of registration and use in bad

WIPO Case No D2000-0003 holding that use of a domain name may include passive holding of the domain name even if the web site has not been activated EBAY WIPO Case No D2000-1444 Thus the question becomes one of proof Are there circumstances

acknowledges that he is passively holding or warehousing the names again allegedly for the purpose of protecting them for the benefit of the Complainant Respondent has done nothing whatsoever to establish a Website or in any other way use the

faith is not excused by the passive holding of the domain names in question See Empresa Brasileira de Telecomunicações S.A Embratel vs Kevin McCarthy WIPO Case No D2000-0164 As the factors establishing bad faith registration and use identified

domain name Respondent s passive holding of the tezosentan.com domain name is evidence of bad faith See Am Home Prod Corp v Malgioglio D2000-1602 WIPO Feb 19 2001 finding no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name solgarvitamins.com

Respondent registration and passive holding of the domain name also supports a finding of bad faith See Alitalia Linee Aeree Italiane S.p.A v Colour Digital D2000-1260 WIPO Nov 23 2000 finding bad faith where the Respondent made no use of the

domain name Respondent s passive holding of the bosentan.com domain name is evidence of bad faith See Am Home Prod Corp v Malgioglio D2000-1602 WIPO Feb 19 2001 finding no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name solgarvitamins.com

some panels have found that passive holding of a domain name may be evidence of bad faith particularly when other factors tending to show bad faith are present See e.g Telstra Corp Ltd v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Here

s business Respondent s passive holding of the parknfly.com domain name identical to Complainant s service mark is evidence of bad faith See DCI S.A v Link Commercial Corp D2000-1232 WIPO Dec 7 2000 concluding that the Respondent s passive

its registration constitutes passive holding and establishes a lack of rights or legitimate interests in respect to the disputed domain name See American Home Prod Corp v Malgioglio D2000-1602 WIPO Feb 19 2001 finding no rights or legitimate

s inaction constitutes a passive holding of the domain name It has been well established that Respondent s passive holding of the domain name amounts to a bad faith use of the domain name in certain circumstances To determine whether the