asserts Respondent s passive holding of the domain name also constitutes evidence of bad faith Complainant argues B Respondent In his Response Respondent asserts that he never acted in bad faith in registering the fordsocial.com domain

a period of almost six years Passive holding defines circumstances where there is no active use of the domain name to identify a website Most importantly passive holding of a domain name is evidence that the domain name is neither being used for a

the Coming Soon page is passively held it contains enough material to cause confusion with the Complainant s trademark The products referred to in the Respondent s website are the same as those sold by the Complainant Such passive holding

Nat Arb Forum July 31 2000 holding that the respondent s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true see also Talk City Inc v Robertson D2000-0009 WIPO Feb 29 2000 In the

Paragraph 4 b i based upon a passive offer of sale included on the website to which the domain resolves The screenshot of the website confirms Complainant s contention The Panel determines that Respondent s passive offer to sell the disputed

Nat Arb Forum July 31 2000 holding that the respondent s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true see also Talk City Inc v Robertson D2000-0009 WIPO Feb 29 2000 In the

under the Policy that passive holding of itself demonstrates absence of rights or legitimate interests on the part of Respondent See Indofil Chemicals Company v Amar Vakil D2006-0792 WIPO Aug 14 2006 The significance of passive holding of a

Forum April 20 2005 that the passive holding of a domain name that is identical to a Complainant s mark is not a bona fide offering of goods or services On the basis of these clear precedents the Panel finds that paragraph 4 a ii is also proved

The opposite is true Passive holding alone or delay in attaching a site are not bad faith under the Policy In any event the Respondent is not passively holding the Domain Names which have contained links of interest to Disney fans and the

search Respondent is passively holding the domain name without resolving to a website It has been routinely held that passive holding of domain names that are confusingly similar to well known trademarks constitutes bad faith use

Nat Arb Forum Aug 18 2006 holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under UDRP Paragraph 4 a ii before the burden shifts to the

Forum April 20 2005 that the passive holding of a domain name that is identical to a Complainant s mark is not a bona fide offering of goods or services On the basis of these clear precedents the Panel finds that Policy Paragraph 4 a ii is also

is analogous to non-use or passive holding which also does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or non-commercial fair use under the UDRP Fourth Respondent is not and has not been commonly known by the Domain Name In

file which constitutes a passive holding of the domain name which the Panel finds does not demonstrate a bona fide offering of goods or service pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 c i or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy

also contends that mere passive use of a domain name including by claiming ownership without authorization is bad faith Further stealing a domain name is itself an indication of abusive intent and the fact that the domain name rightfully

has repeatedly held that passive holding of a domain name is not legitimate use See TMP Int l Inc v Baker Enters FA 204112 Nat Arb Forum Dec 6 2003 T he Panel concludes that Respondent passive holding of the domain name does not establish

or fair use but instead has passively held the Domain Name since its registration in 1994 Further Complainant asserts that printouts from the Internet Archive indicate that Respondent has never operated a website and contends that Respondent

argues that Respondent s holding of the currently inactive website demonstrates bad faith registration and use Previous panels have agreed with the assertion that passive holding of a domain name indicates bad faith See Clerical Med Inv Group

Forum Dec 4 2003 Respondent passive holding of the aolfact.com domain name for over six months is evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name see also State Fair of Texas v State Fair Guides FA 95066 Nat Arb

28 2000 finding that merely holding an infringing domain name without active use can constitute use in bad faith see also Compagnie Generale des Matieres Nucleaires v Greenpeace Int l D2001-0376 WIPO May 14 2001 holding that despite the