finds based on Respondent s passive holding as noted in the Rights and Legitimate Interests Section that Respondent acted in bad faith by making no use or passively holding of the disputed domain name See Clerical Med Inv Group Ltd v

the United States there was passive holding of the domain name by the respondent who did not contest the administrative proceedings and did not submit an assertion or proof of good faith and evidence was accepted that the respondent had actual

is known and recognized as passive holding first analysed and defined in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and confirmed in several WIPO cases and that this passive holding of the domain names permits

that the Respondent s passive holding of the domain name satisfies the bad faith requirement of Policy Paragraph 4 a iii Additionally Respondent showed bad faith registration because the disputed domain names incorporate Complainant s mark

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

that the Respondent s passive holding of the domain name satisfies the bad faith requirement of Policy Paragraph 4 a iii Additionally Respondent showed bad faith registration because the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to

the domain names Respondent s passive holding of the victor-victoriassecret.com domain name does not demonstrate a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4 c i See American Home Prod Corp v Malgioglio D2000-1602 WIPO Feb 19

name in addition to the passive holding of the domain name reveal that the Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith Mondich & Am Vintage Wine Biscuits Inc v Brown D2000-0004 WIPO Feb 16 2000 holding that the Respondent s

6 In the leading case on passive use Footnote 7 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

s business Respondent s passive holding of the inverlink.net and inverlink.org domain names is evidence of bad faith by Respondent See Arab Bank for Inv and Foreign Trade v Akkou D2000-1399 WIPO Dec 19 2000 finding bad faith registration and

that domain name 6.2.3.3 Passive holding In that there has been no use of the domain name in dispute it must logically be concluded that the respondent has been holding it passively According to numerous decisions given by the Center passive

recognises that inaction eg passive holding in relation to a domain name registration can in certain circumstances constitute a domain name being used in bad faith The learned panelist went on to consider whether inaction passive holding in

Respondent acted in bad faith Passive holding of the disputed domain names 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 holding of the domain name satisfies the

infer that this is a case of passive holding In support of this conclusion the Panel would like to point out that 1 There is no evidence in this record showing any actual or contemplated good faith use by it of the domain name 2.-There is no

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

well-known trademarks and his passive holding of the domain name Accordingly the Panelist concludes that the Respondent registered and is using the domain name dknyjeans.com in bad faith 7 Decision For the foregoing reasons the Panelist holds a

have repeatedly held that passive holding of a domain name may constitute a use in the sense of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy Contrary to what the Respondent contends the concept of a domain name being used in bad faith is not limited to

iittala.com is inactive A passive holding of a domain name can also constitute a use in bad faith Reference is made to WIPO Decision Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows Case No D2000-0003 The Respondents inactivity constitutes a

been found in other cases the passive holding of the registration of a domain name can be a ground for a finding of registration and use in bad faith Remedy requested In accordance with Paragraph 4 i of the Policy and for the reasons described in

domain name and that passive holding constitutes bad faith See Caravan Club v Mrgsale FA 95314 Nat Arb Forum Aug 30 2000 finding that the Respondent had made no use of the domain name or website that connects with the domain name and