contention that Respondent s passive holding of the domain name for later use is evidence of bad faith and that Respondent is responsible for the actions of the domain parking service provider it used Still further Complainant s claims of innocent

to sell them Respondent s passive holding of both domain names for over three years illustrates evidence of bad faith use and registration Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant s rights in the mark before renewing the domain name as

registered Focusing on the passive holding of the harleygoodys.net domain name Complainant indicates that bad faith is established as a result of the confusing similarity between such name and Complainant s HARLEY and HARLEY-DAVIDSON marks and

used is to be considered as passive holding The incorporation of a famous mark into a domain name coupled with an inactive website is to be considered as bad faith registration and use Decision For all the following reasons the Complaint is

is perceived as an act of passive holding which prevents the Complainant from registering the domain name under his rightfully owned trademarks The Respondent did not reply to Complainant s cease and desist letter RESPONDENT The Respondent in

D2003-0982 WIPO Feb 8 2004 holding respondent lacked any right or legitimate interest in domain featuring its well known mark that resolved to no website at all or an under construction page Staples Inc v Conrad D2003-0713 WIPO Oct 27 2003

websites Such non-use or passive holding of a domain name is not a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy Paragraph4 c i Michelin North America Inc v Energie Media Group FA 451882 Nat Arb Forum Aug

that the Respondent s passive holding of the domain name in this particular case satisfie d the requirement of paragraph 4 a iii that the domain name is being used in bad faith by Respondent Id The Panel finds that Policy Paragraph 4 a iii

panels have made clear passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith WIPO Overview 2.0 paragraph 3.2 See also Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Under the circumstances of this case

therefore is considered as a passive holding As prior WIPO UDRP panel have held the incorporation of a famous trademark into a domain name coupled with an inactive website may be evidence of bad faith registration and use NO ADMINISTRATIVELY

to produce a webpage This passive holding of the domain name is not a sufficient use Policy Paragraph 4 a iii Respondent s bad faith use and registration of the domain name Respondent s failure to make an active use of the domain name is in

has been making only passive use of the disputed domain name which resolves to a generic landing page containing third-party links to Complainant s competitors iii Respondent is attempting to attract users to its domain name for commercial

that the respondent s passive holding of the domain name satisfies the requirement of Paragraph4 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

possible that a r espondent s passive holding amounts to bad faith Telstra supra stating that paragraph 4 b recognizes that inaction e.g passive holding in relation to a domain name registration can in certain circumstances constitute a domain name

The Panel determines that holding a domain name without creating a resolving website constitutes failure to make an active use of the domain name and concludes that passive holding of the domain name is evidence of Respondent s bad faith

we conclude that Respondent s passive holding of the domain name does not constitute either a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy Paragraph 4 c ii or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy Paragraph 4 c iii See Pirelli

with an active website Such passive holding is evidence of bad faith c The mycarfax.org domain name resolves to a site that offers used car dealership services This constitutes competitive disruption and is evidence of bad faith pursuant to

2004 the panel held that the passive holding of the domain name demonstrated a lack of rights and legitimate interests Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent s present non-use of the statefarmtwocheck.com domain name is neither a Policy

using other entities marks passive holding of the disputed domain name and attempt to sell or rent the lincolnfinancialgroup.com domain name for a sum in excess of the registration costs Respondent was aware of Complainant s mark at the time it

users to competitors Passive use is not per se use in bad faith and bad faith must be proved There is no attempt by the Respondent to disrupt the business of a competitor The Respondent s current passive use is understandable The