in the domain name based on passive holding of the domain name or through offering the domain name for sale on an auction website The Complainant argues from the foregoing that the Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith

is not active anymore such a passive holding has to be considered as bad faith use of the domain name ciccm.com by the Respondent The Respondent did not provide any explanation for its conduct or to demonstrate any legitimate interest including

used in bad faith as the passive holding of the disputed Domain Name fosters the aforementioned purposes B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant ™s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings The Policy and the Rules establish

domain name constitutes passive holding which is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 c i and it is not a legitimate noncommercial of fair use pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 c iii See State Fair of

Respondent is currently passively holding the disputed domain name and has not come forward with any demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name In Nike Inc v Crystal Int l D2001-0102 WIPO Mar 19 2001 the panel found that the

the Respondent is currently passively holding the disputed domain names and has been doing so for at least several months Respondent has made no showing of any demonstrable preparations of use of the disputed domain names since Respondent began

its website and Respondent s passive holding of the domain name lettsoflondondiaries.com it is clear that Respondent has registered and is using the domain names in bad faith B Respondent Respondent contends that it has been a reseller of

disputed domain name has been passively held since at least June 2 2006 and that such use is evidence of bad faith registration and use See DCI S.A v Link Commercial Corp D2000-1232 WIPO Dec 7 2000 concluding that the respondent s passive holding

her stance that she was holding the name as a fiduciary Cases where a passive holding has been used against a respondent are usually those where the respondent has registered the name opportunistically hoping to sell it to advantage and

of bad faith on the basis of passive holding However it is not necessary to delve further into this given the discussion above The Panel finds that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith 7 Decision For all

for almost a year Such passive holding is not a bona fide offering of a good or service pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 c i or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 c iii See AT&T Corp v Domains by Brian Evans

s non-use constitutes passive holding and thus 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 noncommercial or fair use under Policy Paragraph 4 c

4 a iii on grounds of passive holding Cf Clerical Med Inv Group Ltd v Clericalmedical.com D2000-1228 WIPO Nov 28 2000 finding that merely holding an infringing domain name without active use can constitute use in bad faith cf also Caravan

where the respondent merely passively held the domain name see also 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 rights or legitimate

Respondent has resorted to passively holding the disputed domain name as a means of subterfuge and/or in the mistaken belief that such action will avoid a finding of bad faith Passive holding constitutes active use In fact Panels have

with the domain name and that passive holding of a domain name permits an inference of registration and use in bad faith se also Clerical Med Inv Group Ltd v Clericalmedical.com D2000-1228 WIPO Nov 28 2000 finding that merely holding an infringing

Nov 28 2000 found that merely holding an infringing domain name without active use can constitute use in bad faith for a respondent Therefore in light of Respondent s nonuse and passive holding of the disputed domain name registrations the Panel

content The Panel finds that passive holding of a disputed domain name for approximately two years is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See DCI S.A v Link Commercial Corp D2000-1232 WIPO Dec 7 2000

domain name amounts to passive holding by the Respondent and a finding in the circumstances of use in bad faith The Complainant has thus also proved the requirement of the Policy paragraph 4 a iii 7 Decision For all the foregoing reasons in

upper class non commercial passive holding œ tique tic D2003 0283 0060 D2000 1013 D2001 0104 œBT Atlantic œwww.b transatlantic.com out of pocket on line D2004 0245 0003 1232 1633 S A bt-atlantic com transat tm fr banquetransatlantique B T œwww