event the circumstances show passive holding in bad faith B The ResponseRespondents vigorously object to the Complainants frequent inferences that the individual Respondents used fictitious names or aliases indicating that for the last 8 years

event the circumstances show passive holding in bad faith B The ResponseRespondents vigorously object to the Complainants frequent inferences that the individual Respondents used fictitious names or aliases indicating that for the last 8 years

in bad faith if only through passive holding quoting Telstra D2000-003 and the well-known set of WIPO cases which followed and affirmed Telstra The question of passive holding while theoretically interesting in this context has now become moot

future the Respondent were passively holding the domain name ikeausa.com this behavior would under the circumstances of the case amount to bad faith use The Respondent has incorporated in its entirety the Complainant well-known mark in his

than to sell it constitutes a passive holding which is evidence of bad faith See e.g Cruzeiro Licenciamentos Ltda v Sallen Enterprises D2000-0715 WIPO Sept 6 2000 DCI S.A v Link Commercial Corp D2000-1232 WIPO Dec 7 2000 DECISIONThe domain name

would present a question of passive holding See Telstra Corp v Nuclear Marshmallows D2000-0003 WIPO February 18 2000 However the Respondent's conduct here amounts to far more than passive holding and is far more pernicious in its effect Passive

that inaction such as the passive holding of a domain name registration can in certain circumstances be evidence of bad faith The Respondent points out that the finding in the Telstra case is that the passive holding of a domain name amounts to

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 Case D 2000-0003 In addition it would be both

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 Case D 2000-0003 In the present proceeding the

on October 29 1998 Passive holding of a domain name for over two years is evidence of bad faith use of a domain name See Telstra Corp v Nuclear Marshmallows D2000-0003 WIPO Feb 18 2000 finding that passive holding of a domain name is use

the domain name and thus has passively held it since the domain name was registered and by passively holding the domain name is by implication demonstrating an intent to sell the domain name Lastly Complainant contends that any information

and on the argument that passive holding of a domain name can amount to bad faith in particular circumstances see telstra WIPO D2000-0003 followed for example in fendi WIPO D2000-1227 and alitaliacargo WIPO D2000-1260 Complainant invokes

name in addition to the passive holding of the domain name reveal that the Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith In situations such as this where Respondent fails to submit a response the panel draws two inferences First

both the practice of multiple holdings and ofpassive holding in and of themselves have been found by previous panels not to establish a legitimate interest or right See e.g VZ VermogenZentrum AG v Anything.com D2000-0527 Reed Publishing Nederland

is not conclusive of non-use Passive holding of the domain name can constitute bad faith depending upon the circumstances of the case The circumstances which apply in this case are summarised below in the Panel Findings 6.4.2.2 Despite the

Telstra decision 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 7 Decision In light of the foregoing the Panel decides that 1 The Domain Names registered by

PANEL DECISION Mövenpick Holding AG v Olive Tree Products Case No D2000-1540 1 The Parties The Complainant in these administrative proceedings is Mövenpick Holding AG a Swiss company with its business seat in Zurich Switzerland The Respondent

Name This inaction called passive holding of a domain name constitutes use of the Domain Name in bad faith because the Complainant SONY marks have a strong worldwide reputation and it is impossible to conceive of any plausible use of the Domain

is of the opinion that this passive holding of the Domain Names since their registration in question combined with the lack of explanation or evidence provided by the Respondent to demonstrate its good faith in registering or using these Domain

Complainant submits that by passively holding the said domain names the Respondent is preventing the Complainant with a legitimate interest in the name from using the said domain name In Telstra Corp Ltd v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No