Policy The Respondent later passive holding of the Domain Name also amounts to bad faith registration and use in the broader sense of the expression passive holding discussed in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No

bad faith from the Respondent passive holding of the disputed domain name.1 B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant contentions 6 Discussion and Findings A Scope of the Policy The Policy is addressed to resolving disputes

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 Hewlett-Packard Co v Rayne FA 101465 Nat Arb Forum Dec 17

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

is parked that fact shows passive holding of the domain name within the principle of Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmellows WIPO Case No.D2000-0003 which constitutes bad faith Respondent In its Additional Submission the Respondent

Case No D2000-0003 finding passive holding of a domain name in violation of the Policy Revlon Consumer Products Corporation v Yoram Yosef aka Joe Goldman WIPO Case No D2000-0468 ordering a transfer even though the respondent ha d not used the

with eBay Respondent current passive holding of the domain names also constitutes bad faith Complainant declares Complainant also points to Respondent offer to sell the domain names to Complainant for sums in excess of out-of-pocket costs

to an active website but has passively held the disputed domain name since registration Such passive holding cannot constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services on the part of Respondent In the absence of evidence to the contrary and

to an active website but has passively held the disputed domain names since registration Such passive holding cannot constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services on the part of Respondent In the absence of evidence to the contrary and

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

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 further see Boeing Co v Bressi D2000-1164 WIPO Oct 23 2000 finding

by its inaction its passive holding of the domain name to the exclusion of the Complainant Since registration of the domain name in issue the domain name has directed users to a website advertising the services of the registrar with which

See e.g MGM Mirage v Beroca Holdings FA 1031948 Nat Arb Forum Aug 23 2007 see also Akbank Turk A.S v Beroca Holdings B.V.I Limited D2008-0572 WIPO June 23 2008 DISCUSSION Paragraph 15 a of the Rules instructs this Panel to decide a complaint on

Panel finds that this is a passive holding of the disputed domain name and therefore constitutes neither a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 c i nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy

it was ascertained that a passive holding of a domain name for a long period of time may be sufficient to constitute bad faith taking into consideration the overall context of the Respondent behavior see for example Praktiker AG v web4COMM SRL

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

Names and that Respondent passive holding of the Domain Name shutterflyseniors.com is not bona fide use B Respondent Respondent contends that it is not attempting to leverage or confuse the public with the naming of the Domain Names that are

Nat Arb Forum July 31 2000 holding that a 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

long been recognized that a passive holding of a domain name can constitute registration and use in bad faith Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 As in that case the present case concerns a well-known

justifies the conclusion that passive holding constitutes the use in bad faith by the Respondent see Consitex S.A Lanificio Ermenegildo Zegna & Figli S.p.A and Ermenegildo Zegna Corporation v Varentinuo inc reg by sopao.com WIPO Case No D2008-0186