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 nor is it a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the

reference to a situation of passive holding under the appearance of an �MySQL Error File /feed sites/keywords.MYD �not found Errcode 2 � as showed by the evidence submitted by the Complainant Nevertheless the content of the website is not

Complainant asserts that mere passive holding of the domain name can be regarded as bad faith use since no possible use in good faith can be conceived The Complainant also states that the Respondent registered the domain name in order to prevent

others choose the content Passive holding of a domain name is neither evidence of or against bad faith and must be evaluated in light of all of the circumstances relating to the domain name The Panel finds that Complainant has met its burden of

faith based on a history of passive holding or accusation of cybersquatting no prior attempt to contact Complainant to sell the domain or otherwise and no financial or personal incentive to act in bad faith towards complainant Rule 4 a iii

requirements under this head Passive holding of a domain may constitute registration and use in bad faith see Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 but each case has to be considered on its facts These in

and use based upon mere passive holding of a domain name Respondent has not provided the Panel with any viable alternative explanation for its actions The Panel therefore concludes that the disputed domain name was registered and is being

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 The Panel finds that Complainant satisfied Policy Paragraph 4 a

that the respondent �s passive holding of the domain name satisfied the requirement of Paragraph 4 a iii that the domain name is being used in bad faith by the respondent Also see JVC America v Damien Mcafee ICANN Case No. CPR007 �001031

Credit Union v LaPorte Holdings c/o Admin FA 608227 holding respondent �s use of the domain name for a website featuring links to various commercial websites for respondent �s own commercial gain constitutes bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4

see Pancil LLC v Jucco Holdings WIPO Case No. D2006-0676 Arla Foods amba v Jucco Holdings WIPO Case No. D2006-0409 and Biomedica Pharma-Produkte GmbH v Jucco Holdings WIPO Case No. D2006-0526 In the first case the panel concluded �the

WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 passive holding of a domain name can be considered as bad faith where it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the disputed domain name that would not be illegitimate See

Policy that a respondent �s passive holding of a domain name does not preclude a finding of bad faith registration and use Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Accordingly the Panel finds that the Complainant

registration and subsequent passive holding may in the appropriate circumstances amount to bad faith registration and use for the purpose of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy The Policy does not define �bad faith � for this purpose Panels in

and iii the Respondent �s passive holding and offers to sell As to i the Respondent says that the Complainant overstates the fame of its mark Its earliest registration was after the Respondent left Algeria and became a resident of the United

contact the trademark holder Passive holding � The answer given in the Overview is as follows �Consensus view The lack of active use of the domain name does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith The panel must examine all the circumstances of

domain name in Australia the passive holding of the domain name over a considerable period of time without any reasonable cause permits the inference of registration and/or use of the domain name in bad faith Complainant cites Telstra Corporation

para 3 b ix 3 Respondent passive holding of the contested domain constitutes evidence of bad faith See Radio & Records Inc v Jucco Holdings c/o Admin FA0603000665108 Nat Arb Forum May 9 2006 Respondent s radioandrecord.com domain name which is

the Respondent is merely passively holding the domain name Finally the Respondent has indicated that the domain name is for sale The Complainant contends that it may be inferred from such action that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate

finding that the respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain names demonstrates that the respondent is not using the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy Paragraph 4 c i or a legitimate