several subsequent decisions passive holding can constitute bad faith The Complainant has requested the Administrative Panel to issue a decision by which the contested domain name is transferred to the Complainant B Respondent The Respondent did

� website Such passive holding does not confer a legitimate interest on the Respondent Originally the domain name ikarus-software.com resolved into a website having pornographic content The unauthorized use of the Complainant �s

be considered as a �passive holding � that is the registration of a domain name that has not been used by the registrant over a long period of time Specifically one of the domain names has not been used for five years whilst the other was

concluding that 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 respondent made no use of the domain name

proceedings Arguments about passive holding also do not seem relevant to this case When visited by Panel the domain name resolved in a fairly active web site This web site precisely offers a variety of commercial services or announces future

Complainant � Respondent �s passive holding of seven of the eleven Domain Names is additional evidence that the Domain Names are not being used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services See Paws Inc v garfieldonline NAF Case No

names are not in use Also passive holding of a domain name is in the concept 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

in this case the �passive holding � namely � holding the domain name without using it infers bad faith As established in a number of prior cases the concept of �bad faith use � in paragraph 4 b of the Policy includes not only positive action

at the Network Solutions LLC holding page the web site is still under construction This therefore is rather a case of passive holding of the Domain Name given that even though over a year has passed since Respondent registered the Domain Name

the Respondent is merely passively holding the Domain Name which alone is sufficient to constitute bad faith See Telstra Corporation v Nuclear Marshmallows D2000-0003 WIPO February 18  2000 finding that mere passive holding of a website is

in this case the �passive holding � namely � holding the domain name without using it infers bad faith As established in a number of prior cases the concept of �bad faith use � in paragraph 4 b of the Policy includes not only positive action

that the domain name has been passively held does not mean that the 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 many

WIPO Case No D2002-0377 Passive holding of domain names corresponding to another �s mark may support a finding of bad faith use See Reliant Energy v Robert Wiggins WIPO Case No D2001-0769 citing Lake Las Vegas Joint Venture v M Bridges and

the Respondent engages in passive holding of the disputed domain name The fact that a Respondent engages in passive holding of a domain name can in certain circumstances be evidence of use in bad faith In Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear

the Panel considers that the passive holding of a domain name alfredsungbridesmaid can be seen as use in bad faith in particular when there is no obvious legitimate use of the domain name The fact that the domain name alfredsungbridesmaids has

Policy Paragraph 4 a iii by passively holding the domain name without demonstrating any preparations to use the domain name See DCI S.A v Link Commercial Corp D2000-1232 WIPO Dec 7 2000 concluding that Respondent s passive holding of the domain

business purpose The term passive holding did not appear anywhere in the original complaint Nor did Complainant cite to any case holding that passive holding is evidence of bad faith registration and use Applying the Grove analysis to the facts

concluding that 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

what circumstances of passive holding other than identified in paragraphs 4 b i-iii of the Policy can constitute bad faith use and in considering whether the passive holding of a domain name following a bad faith registration of it

thereby constituting passive holding 5.9 Complainant requests that the disputed Domain Names be transferred to Complainant B Respondent 5.10 The Respondent did not acknowledge any contact did not make any submissions and has not denied the