that the Respondent s passive holding of the domain name satisfies the requirement of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy Further it appears Respondent registered the disputed domain name to intentionally attract Internet users to its web site

Panel laid down that a passive holding of a domain name by a Respondent may amount to the domain name being used in bad faith The Respondent has apart from registering the domain name liv52.com also registered two other domain names being

2000 to the effect that the passive holding of a domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use 7 Decision In view of the above the Panel grants Complainant request for transfer to it of the domain name viagratea.com Jeffrey M Samuels

that the Respondent s passive holding of the domain name satisfies the requirement of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy Finally Respondent has registered several infringing domain names which establishes a pattern of conduct and shows bad

that the Respondent s passive holding of the domain name satisfies the requirement of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy Further the evidence supports the conclusion that Respondent registered the disputed domain name to intentionally attract

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

Respondent s inactivity or passive holding of the domain name may prove that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith The Respondent s passive use of the domain names together with the questionable attitude evidenced by

with the domain name and passive holding of a domain name permits an inference of registration and use in bad faith Also Respondent knew or should have known of Complainant s well-established mark prior to registering the disputed domain name

been aware of it Respondent s passive holding of the domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use 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

domain names amounts to passive holding which while being fully cognizant of the Complainant trademark rights evidences bad faith use Various panels including this Panel on a prior occasion have held that passive holding coupled with

the domain name and has been passively holding the domain name since registration DISCUSSION Paragraph 15 a of the Rules instructs this Panel to decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the

faith Likewise Respondent s passive holding of the huffines-auto.com and huffines-chrysler.com domain names is a demonstration of bad faith use and registration because Respondent knew or should have known of Complainant s marks and services See

the eighth largest financial holding company in the United States with over 181 billion dollars in assets It claims to be a global financial company with more than 20000000 customers in more than 20 countries and territories around the world

it is well established that passive holding of a domain name can constitute bad faith use of that domain name under the Policy Telstra Corporation v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 In that case too the Respondent had provided and

of the domain name Respondent passive holding of the domain name provides support for a determination of bad faith registration and use See Telstra Corp Ltd v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 February 18 2000 The evidence further

No D2000-0140 Charles Jourdan Holding AG v AAIM WIPO Case No D2000-0403 and Ogaan India Private Limited v Mehboob Alam WIPO Case No D2000-0720 The Complainant claims rights in the trademark BENZER It has registered it in India for goods in classes

and Christiandior.net A passive holding of a domain name is not in itself sufficient evidence of bad faith However as noted by the Panelist in British Sky Broadcasting Limited v Domain Reservations Case D2000-0507 It is well known that

bad faith activity even passive activities such as the parking or passive holding of a domain name with the knowledge that it infringes the trademark of another is evidence of bad faith See Telstra Corp v Nuclear Marshmallows D2000-0003 WIPO

of the domain name Respondent passive holding of the domain name provides support for a determination of bad faith registration and use See Telstra Corp Ltd v Nuclear Marshmallows Case No D2000-0003 Feb 18 2000 Moreover the evidence also indicates

constituted bad faith The passive holding of the domain name in dispute by Respondent is further evidence of bad faith under Policy 4 b See EMKA-Inc v E.K.M.A Inc FA 95133 Nat Arb Forum Aug 10 2000 stating that passive holding of a domain name