�in considering whether a passive holding of a domain name following a bad faith registration of it satisfies the requirements of paragraph 4 a iii the Panel must give close attention to all the circumstances of the Respondent �s behavior � �

name is demonstrated by its passive holding of the domain name since 2003 and further by Respondent �s offer to sell the domain name on its website which offer was posted after the Complaint was filed 6 Discussion and Findings In order to prevail

that the Respondent �s passive holding of the domain name satisfies the requirements of paragraph 4 a ii of the Policy that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith The Panel is of course aware of the use of the

for four years constitutes passive holding and 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 concluding that 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 UDRP see also Clerical Med Inv Group Ltd v Clericalmedical.com D2000-1228 WIPO Nov 28 2000 finding that merely holding an

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

period of nearly two years as passive holding Thus Panel concludes that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 a ii See Am Home Prod Corp v Malgioglio D2000-1602 WIPO Feb 19 2001 finding

the domain name and such passive use is preventing consumers from locating Complainant Respondent is not using the domain name in association with a bona fide offering of goods or services Respondent has no trademark or intellectual property

that the domain name has been passively held does not mean that the domain name has not been �used � as that term has been defined by previous UDRP panels The passive holding of a website has been found to create an inference of �bad faith � use in

and currently points to a holding page b The Respondent �s failure to use the domain name for over two and a half years is sufficient to rebut any argument that the Respondent has been engaged in preparations to use the domain name c Given the

February 16  2000 passive holding of a web site creates an inference of �bad faith � The Panel is also persuaded that the Respondent �s acquisition of the Disputed Domain Name from the broker was in bad faith In the present case

point concerns Respondent �s passive holding of the flamingoclubhr.com domain name As succinctly stated in the WIPO Decision Overview Section 3.2 �The lack of active use of the domain name does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith The panel

also argued that Respondent s passive holding of the domain name under the circumstances is itself evidence of bad faith and especially true when as here such passive holding is combined with Respondent s actual or constructive knowledge of

forum DECISION Kraft Foods Holdings Inc v LaPorte Holdings c/o Admin Claim Number FA0503000449415 PARTIES Complainant is Kraft Foods Holdings Inc Complainant Three Lakes Drive NF 579 Northfield IL 60093 Respondent is LaPorte Holdings c/o Admin

Respondent has engaged in passive holding which evidences Respondent s lack of rights and legitimate interests in the domain name under Policy Paragraph 4 a ii See Pharmacia & Upjohn AB v Romero D2000-1273 WIPO Nov 13 2000 finding no rights or

finds that the Respondent �s passive holding of the domain name mounts to bad faith registration and use The Panel concludes that the domain name at issue has been registered and is being used in bad faith 7 Decision For all the foregoing reasons

Respondent has engaged in passive holding then the Panel may find that Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith under Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See DCI S.A v Link Commercial Corp D2000-1232 WIPO Dec 7 2000 concluding that the

he is engaged in passive domain name holding for these purposes In the circumstances outlined this Panel is unanimously of the view that the Complainant has established that the Respondent has registered and is using the domain name in

in bad faith followed by a passive holding of a domain name can amount to use in bad faith when it appears that there is no way in which such name could ever be used legitimately in relation to a business or offering of goods or services and the

domain names constituted passive holding and Respondent s only interest appears to have been to attempt to extract a profit from Complainant when Respondent was contacted by Complainant in January 2005 regarding Complainant s interest in