with the domain name and that passive holding of a domain name permits an inference of registration and use in bad faith see also DCI S.A v Link Commercial Corp D2000-1232 WIPO Dec 7 2000 concluding that the respondent s passive holding of the

that the respondent s passive holding of the domain name satisfies the requirement of Paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy see also Caravan Club v Mrgsale FA 95314 Nat Arb Forum Aug 30 2000 finding that the respondent made no use of the domain

can be inferred from the passive holding of domain names Because of the worldwide standing and use of the Complainant �s mark the Respondent should be deemed to have actual knowledge of the Complainant �s rights when the Respondent registered

in a situation involving a passive holding of the domain name registration Of course these three paragraphs require additional facts � P aragraph 4 b recognises that inaction e.g passive holding in relation to a domain name registration can in

the Policy See Janus Int �l Holding Co v Rademacher WIPO Case No D2002-0201 finding that the registration of a mark is prima facie evidence of validity which creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently distinctive Respondent has

with the domain name and that passive holding of a domain name permits an inference of registration and use in bad faith Furthermore Complainant asserts that Respondent is an employee of an independent contractor agent that works with State Farm

as described above from �mere passive holding � Respondent �s use occurred prior to its first notice of this dispute Complainant �s counsel �s initial letter in June 2006 Bad faith Since Respondent registered the disputed domain name before

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

finds that the Respondent �s passive holding of the Domain Name in this particular case meets the requirement of paragraph 4 a iii that the Domain Name �is being used in bad faith � by the Respondent The Respondent has used the Domain Name as a

WIPO Dec 7 2000 respondent s passive holding of the domain name satisfies the requirement of Paragraph 4 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

is a sign of bad faith Holding the domain name in a passive manner without making any use thereof is also a sign of bad faith The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark of the Complainant because it incorporates the

Nuclear Marshmallows that the passive holding of a domain name registered in bad faith is use in bad faith for the purposes of the Policy Accordingly in the circumstances of this case and having regard to the failure of the Respondent �s positive

that the respondent s passive holding of the domain name satisfies the requirement of Paragraph 4 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

with the domain name and that passive holding of a domain name permits an inference of registration and use in bad faith The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4 a iii has been satisfied DECISION Having established all three elements required under the

with the domain name and that passive holding of a domain name permits an inference of registration and use in bad faith The Panel finds that Complainant satisfied Policy Paragraph 4 a iii DECISION Having established all three elements required

Forum DECISION Tetris Holding LLC v Tetris User Group Claim Number FA0610000823282 PARTIES Complainant is Tetris Holding LLC Complainant represented by Jeanne Hamburg of Norris McLaughlin & Marcus P.A 875 Third Avenue 18th Floor New York NY

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

that this constitutes a mere passive holding of the domain name According to UDRP practice such a passive holding demonstrates a lack of rights or legitimate interests See e.g Am Home Prod Corp v Malgioglio WIPO Case No D2000-1602 Hence the Panel

with the domain name and that passive holding of a domain name permits an inference of registration and use in bad faith see also Mondich v Brown D2000-0004 WIPO Feb 16 2000 holding that the respondent s failure to develop its website in a two year

overlap Respondent �s passive holding of the domain name acethepraxis.com also constitutes bad faith use Given the renown of the distinctive PRAXIS TOEIC TOEFL and GRE marks Respondent could not have registered the Domain Names at issue