the usalfalfa.com domain name Passive holding is not a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 c i nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4

is within the concept Passive holding on its own may in certain circumstances constitute using a domain name in bad faith under paragraph 4 b of the Rules Id In determining this issue a Panelist must give close attention to all the

domain name Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name satisfies the bad faith requirement of Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See Clerical Med Inv Group Ltd v Clericalmedical.com D2000-1228 WIPO Nov 28 2000 finding that merely holding

competitor ¢ The Respondent s passive holding of the Disputed Domains and refusal to respond to the Complainant s letter of demand equates to bad faith and ¢ The Respondent registered globalcentre.net.au for commercial gain It directed Internet

domain name and that such passive holding of the domain name can constitute bad faith registration and use of the domain name To support its contention Complainant cited cases such as Telstra Corp v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003

not to develop the site Passive holding does not create rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name absent some presentation by a Respondent that a plan is in place that preparations have been made to develop the site and that some

other than a bad faith passive holding intention C Registered and Used in Bad Faith In correspondence dated December 16 2002 Respondents alleged that an amount of USD 15000 fifteen thousand would be due in order to transfer the domain names

is permitted to infer that passive holding of the disputed domain name indicates a lack of rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain name pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 a ii See Am Home Prod Corp v Malgioglio D2000-1602 WIPO Feb

No 97777 NAF July 27 2001 passive holding supports a finding of bad faith particularly when Respondent had constructive knowledge of Complainant s marks and Telstra Corp Ltd v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 February 18 2000

Sept 6 2000 finding that mere passive holding of a domain name can qualify as bad faith if the domain name owner s conduct creates the impression that the name is for sale see also Globosat Programadora Ltda v Artmidia Comunicacao Visual Criacao E

concludes that Respondent s passive holding of the anncoulter.com domain name is further evidence of bad faith on behalf of Respondent See Telstra Corp v Nuclear Marshmallows D2000-0003 WIPO Feb 18 2000 finding that it is possible in certain

decisions it was held that a passive holding of a domain name may on its own be sufficient to constitute bad faith taking into consideration the overall context of Respondent s behavior In the present case the following facts support a finding

Use in Bad Faith Respondent s passive holding of the infringing ataglance.net domain name for over two and a half years without posting any original content evidences bad faith use and registration of the domain name See Mondich & Am Vintage Wine

Complainant alleges that the passive holding by Respondent of the domain name amounts to use in bad faith Finally Complainant indicates that when it made a further review in December 2002 the site was pointed at the servers at the French Company

is even possible Respondent s passive holding of the disputed domain name coupled with the fact that Respondent is a typosquatter leads the Panel to conclude that the domain name is being used in bad faith as contemplated by Policy Paragraph 4 a

also Samsonite Corp v Colony Holding FA 94313 Nat Arb Forum Apr 17 2000 finding that evidence of bad faith includes actual or constructive knowledge of a commonly known mark at the time of registration Furthermore Respondent s passive holding of

domain names Respondent s passive holding of the domain names equates to bad faith use under Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See Phat Fashions v Kruger FA 96193 Nat Arb Forum Dec 29 2000 finding bad faith under Policy Paragraph 4 a iii even though

has since then been passively holding it d in paragraph 5-25 that passive holding of a domain name is not a legitimate non commercial use under the Policy e in paragraphs 5-13 5-14 and 5-26 that on September 5 2002 Complainant attempted

site under construction passive holding of the domain name because any use of the disputed domain name by Respondent would be in violation of Complainant trademark or in violation of unfair competition laws because Respondent offered to sell

Sept 6 2000 finding that mere passive holding of a domain name can qualify as bad faith if the domain name owner s conduct creates the impression that the name is for sale see also Globosat Programadora Ltda v Artmidia Comunicacao Visual Criacao E