The Panel finds that the passive holding of a domain name that is identical to Complainant s 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

Given the Panel s previous holding that the subject domain name is for all intents and purposes identical to Complainant s KASPERSKY mark it may not be held that Respondent s use of the domain name is bona fide 1 In addition Respondent does not

of the Complainant The passive holding of the site supports a finding of bad faith The Respondent is holding the Domain Name hostage from its rightful owner the Complainant Further Points made in the Respondent Additional Submissions can be

that it simply resolves to a passive website The Panel finds that Respondent s inactive holding of the dinerscluboman.com domain name is further evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests under Policy Paragraph 4 a ii See

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

should be considered as passive holding by the Respondent The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has previously engaged in a pattern of registering third parties trademarks as domain names as he has already been involved in proceedings

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

name in addition to the passive holding of the domain name reveal that Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith see also Alitalia Linee Aeree Italiane S.p.A v Colour Digital D2000-1260 WIPO Nov 23 2000 finding bad faith

the prior registrants alleged passive holding and abusive registration of other domain names see in reference to the first registrant Andrew Espanza Akbank Turk A.S v Mr Cihan Uluca Andrew Espanza Ahmet Mithat WIPO Case No DCO2010-0001 Since the

to an active website Such passive holding neither per se constitutes nor prevents a finding of bad faith and all of the circumstances of the case must be examined to determine whether such bad faith on the part of the Respondent is present With

In certain circumstances the passive holding of a domain name can be considered as a bad faith use and such circumstances are present in this case The Respondent has registered the Domain Name in 2009 and is not making use of it The Complainants

in many UDRP cases that passive holding under the appropriate circumstances falls within the concept of the domain name being used in bad faith Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Action S.A v Robert

reputation in California the passive holding of the disputed domain name by the Respondent and the fact that the Respondent may have concealed its identity and provided incorrect or false contact information are evidence of bad faith registration

the disputed domain name is passive and not in use and relies on the decision in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and subsequent decisions agreeing therewith in supporting its allegation that in the

instant case Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name 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

must be described as merely passive in the sense of passive holding Passive holding is generally recognized as falling within the concept of use under paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy but whether inaction should be regarded as bad faith use of a

nature Rather they are passively held by the Respondent whether by association with parking sites or empty sites The evolution of the concept of passive holding since the oft-quoted decision of Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear

several WIPO UDRP decisions passive holding of a domain name constitutes use in bad faith Accor v Howell Edwin WIPO Case No D2005-0980 Ladbroke Group plc v Sonoma International LDC WIPO Case No D2002-0131 Jupiter Limited v Aaaron Hall WIPO Case

in many UDRP cases that passive holding under the appropriate circumstances falls within the concept of the domain name being used in bad faith Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Action S.A v Robert

that the Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name misleads the Complainant s customers into thinking its website is not operating and prevents the Complainant from registering the disputed domain name itself Finally the