that the Respondent had been passively holding the Domain Name with the purpose of selling it because the message ‘this domain is available for sale for 950 USD was displayed at the relevant webpage When contacted by the Complainant the

that Respondents current passive holding of the domain names supports a finding of the requisite bad faith Complainant further maintains that Respondents registration of multiple domain names incorporating the BOBCAT mark establishes a pattern

2004 and therefore has been passively holding the disputed domain name for more than 9 years Panels have held that the passive holding of a domain name for as little as six months provides evidence that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate

name in addition to the passive holding of the domain name reveal that Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith Finally Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant s rights in the CHAN LUU mark when it registered the

to Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA LLC CANCUNCARRENTALALAMO.COM Transferred to Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA LLC CANCUNCARRENTALNATIONAL.COM Transferred to Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA LLC NATIONALCANCUNCARRENTAL.COM Transferred to

Alternatively Respondents passive holding of the Contested Domains particularly liztaylorscollection.com constitutes evidence of bad faith See Volvo Trademark Holding AB v Nicklas Uvelov D2002-0521 WIPO July 25 2002 I t is becoming an

It should be considered as passive holding iv The Respondent has registered the domain names only in order of to disrupt the Complainant s activities notably by using the Complainant's logo on one of the disputed domain name RESPONDENT NO

finds that Respondent s passive holding which is not a bona fide use also supports findings of bad faith registration and use Respondent makes no contentions relative to Policy Paragraph 4 a iii The Panel finds that Respondent registered and

Respondent with respect to passive holding it is well-established that it does not constitute bad faith unless there is factual evidence showing how the Respondent intended to use the disputed domain name in bad faith The Respondent cites UDRP

nonuse of the domain name is passive holding with the aim to prevent from anyone including trademarks owners to be able to register the domain name topachats.info and use a corresponding domain name This passive holding prevents the trademarks

contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith The panel must examine all the circumstances of the case to determine whether the respondent is acting in bad faith In the case at hand the Panel is

Nat Arb Forum Oct 15 2003 holding that the domain name zonelarm.com is confusingly similar to complainant s ZONEALARM mark iv Victoria Secret v Zuccarini Claim Number FA 95762 Nat Arb Forum Nov 18 2000 holding that by misspelling words and

should be characterized as passive holding while it then goes on to admit that Complainant s use of its mark preceded respondent s active use of the subject domain name x Respondent s evidence proves that since 2011 there has been no passive

Paragraph 4 a iii 13 The passive holding of the disputed domain names kasparov2014.com kasparov2014.net kasparov2014.info and kasparov2014.org in sum with Respondent s registration of multiple domain names incorporating Complainant s

panels have found that the holding of a domain name for resale can in some circumstances constitute a Policy Paragraph 4 c i bona fide offering of goods and services See Allocation Network GmbH v Gregory D2000-0016 WIPO Mar 24 2000 holding that

forum DECISION MSI Holdings LLC v GBHost Pushpendra Jaimini / Pushpendra Jaimini Claim Number FA1304001495040 PARTIES Complainant is MSI Holdings LLC Complainant represented by Jonathan M Doloff of Pergament Gilman & Cepeda LLP New

forum DECISION Neal & Massy Holdings Limited v Massy Nealand Claim Number FA1305001498038 PARTIES Complainant is Neal & Massy Holdings Limited Complainant represented by Sheryl De Luca of Nixon & Vanderhye P.C Virginia USA Respondent is Massy

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

in the mark Respondent s passive holding of numerous disputed domain names is evidence of bad faith DISCUSSION Paragraph 15 a of the Rules instructs this Panel to decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in

DECISION Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA LLC v Valorizacion Sas Claim Number FA1304001493668 PARTIES Complainant is Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA LLC Complainant represented by Renee Reuter of Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA LLC Missouri USA