consider as a tantamount to a passive holding of the Domain Names As an additional circumstance evidencing bad faith the Respondent has clearly engaged in a pattern of such conduct which has been defined as follows a pattern of conduct under

registration and passive holding of a domain name corresponding to a well-known trademark Given the lack of any indication in the record that Respondent ever contemplated a legitimate use of the domain name the Panel finds that the

names are registered with DNC HOLDINGS INC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names DNC HOLDINGS INC has verified that Respondent is bound by the DNC HOLDINGS INC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain

Respondent calls this page a holding page compares it to his For Sale page and contends that re-direction to this page amounts to passive holding Both the page at issue and the home page at the Respondent s website www.choosebestdomain.com begin

that Respondent s non-use or passive holding of the domain name harleydavidson-sale.com does not demonstrate any legitimate interest of Respondent in that domain name Panel agrees and finds that Complainant has once more established a prima facie

recognized that inaction e.g passive holding in relation to a domain name registration can in certain circumstances constitute a domain name being used in bad faith Furthermore it must be recalled that the circumstances identified in the Policy

is currently inactive such passive holding could still constitute an act of bad faith and any realistic use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent would constitute passing off and/or trademark infringement In Koc Holding A.S v KEEP B.T

Sito web in manutenzione Passive holding of the websites does not prevent the Panel from finding registration and use in bad faith The Panel further notes that the undeveloped use of the websites at the Domain Names which incorporate

Complainant submits that the passive holding of the Domain Name by Respondent is an evidence of bad faith B Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings Paragraph 15 a of the Rules instructs this Panel

and the Respondent s current passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name currently as a static information page and in the past as a page under construction The Panel finds taking account of all of the circumstances of the case the Respondent has

an active web site i.e is passively held As established in a number of prior cases the concept of bad faith use in paragraph 4 b of the Policy includes not only positive action but also passive holding see the landmark case Telstra Corporation

this is a classic case of passive holding It considers that the Respondent is a cybersquatter who uses the disputed domain names to block the Complainant and to tarnish its reputation B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant

the Respondent has engaged in passive holding of the relevant Disputed Domain Names within the meaning agitated and found to comprise bad faith in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows supra Accordingly the Panel finds that the

name That the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith because it is not possible to conceive any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent that would not be

им активно passive holding с точки з� ения Админист� ативной Комисии свидетельствует о недоб� осовестном использовании спо� ного

s website or location The passive holding of a domain name can constitute bad faith use especially when combined with other factors such as the respondent preventing a trademark or service mark holder from reflecting its mark in a corresponding

4 a iii of the Policy The passive holding of a domain name following its bad faith registration can satisfy the requirements of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy if the circumstances of the respondent s behavior are indicative of bad faith see

2004 The Panel finds that the passive holding of a domain name that is identical to Complainant mark is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 c i and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the

to above This is in effect a passive holding of the Domain Name However it is well established in previous decisions under the Policy that the passive holding of a Domain Name shall not prevent a finding of bad faith when that conclusion is

is currently inactive such passive holding could still constitute bad faith use of the disputed domain name B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 4 a of the