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 a legitimate use of the

WIPO Dec 11 2000 Respondent s passive holding of the domain name indicates Respondent s lack of legitimate rights and interest in the domain name See American Home Prod Corp v Malgioglio D2000-1602 WIPO Feb 19 2001 Bloomberg L.P v Sandhu FA 96261

in the disputed domain name Passive holding of a domain name is evidence that a Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 a ii E.g Nike Inc v Crystal Int l D2001-0102 WIPO Mar 19 2001 finding no rights or

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 with Wrenchead.com Inc v Hammersla D2000-1222 WIPO Dec 12 2000 finding that

that continuous non-use passive holding of a domain name may constitute bad faith As a result Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name supports a finding of bad faith See DCI S.A v Link Commercial Corp D2000-1232 WIPO Dec 7

LAKE WOBEGON mark Respondent passive holding of the domain name can be nothing other than bad faith In addition Respondent s failure to respond to Complainant June 12 2001 letter further demonstrates Respondent lack of good faith intent in

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

as bad faith For example passive holding of domain names corresponding to another mark supported a finding of bad faith in Lake Las Vegas Joint Venture v M Bridges and Third Party Protection Investigations and Consultants WIPO Case No

in bad faith followed by a passive holding of a domain name where there is no way in which it can legitimately be used can amount to use in bad faith Telstra Corp v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 February 18 2000 Respondent s

sale to the highest bidder 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 Respondent s contention that the domain name itself was not offered for sale

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 D2000-0003 February 18 2000 In

thegalluppoll.com domain name Passive holding of a domain name creates a presumption that the 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

also Samsonite Corp v Colony Holding FA 94313 Nat Arb Forum Apr 17 2000 evidence of bad faith includes actual or constructive knowledge of commonly known mark at the time of registration And finally Respondent is passively holding the

Annex 6 that the Respondent passive holding of the Domain Name registration constitutes use in bad faith The Respondent did not file any Response to the Complaint 6 Discussion and Findings To have the disputed Domain Name transferred to it

Resolution Policy in cases of passive holding of the domain name first provided in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and in a number of following decisions such as Ingersoll-Rand v Frank Gully d/b/a

Interest The question of passive holding may be relevant See American Home Prod Corp v Malgioglio D2000-1602 WIPO February 19 2001 finding no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name where the Respondent was merely passively holding

a web-site This amounts to passive holding on part of the Respondent and bad faith use under Telstra In light of the particular circumstances the Administrative Panel concludes that the Respondent s passive holding of the domain name in this

27 The leading case on passive use 28 emphasized that all the circumstances of the case must be considered In that case passive holding was held to amount to acting in bad faith where i the Complainant s trademark had a strong reputation and

No D2000-0919 The Respondent passive holding of the domain it has been inactive for nearly two years in combination with having no legitimate rights or interest in the domain name and the strong likelihood of being aware of Telstra reputation can

7 In the leading case on passive use 8 passive holding was held to amount to acting in bad faith where i the Complainant s trademark had a strong reputation and was widely known ii the Respondent provided no evidence of any actual or