Complainant Thus Respondent s passive holding does not constitute use of the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services Respondent has shown no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names pursuant to Policy

in the Policy is the passive holding of a 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 name satisfies the requirement of Paragraph 4 a iii of the

28 2000 finding that merely holding an infringing domain name without active use can constitute use in bad faith see also DCI S.A v Link Commercial Corp D2000-1232 WIPO Dec 7 2000 concluding that Respondent s passive holding of the domain name

travelsmart.com but has been passively holding the domain for over five years for the only purpose of selling the domain name for an amount in excess of its out-of-pocket costs of registration See HomeFinishers Inc v Tom Schutz FA 123928 Nat Arb

domain name The passive holding of a domain name does not create rights or legitimate interests in a domain name because its holder does not use the domain name in connection with any activity that is considered a bona fide offering

the Respondent s inaction or passive holding of the Domain Name for over seven years Finally the Complainant requests the Panel to issue a decision transferring the Domain Name to the Complainant B The Respondent The Respondent did not submit a

Fried Chicken International Holdings Inc v Kimbeomsung Case No DRO2002-0004 1 The Parties The Complainant is Kentucky Fried Chicken International Holdings Inc a corporation of the state of Delaware with its principal place of business in

that Respondent has passively held the subject domain name for over two years The passive holding of a domain name in which Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests constitutes bad faith use pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 a iii

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 & Am Vintage Wine Biscuits Inc v Brown D2000-0004 WIPO Feb 16 2000 holding that Respondent s failure to

normally insufficient to find passive holding of a domain name Respondent however signed up for TSA s affiliate program upon registering the domain name Under the affiliate program a domain name holder uses its domain name to direct Internet

purpose is considered to be passive holding Passive holding of a domain name does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 a ii See Am Home Prod Corp v Malgioglio D2000-1602 WIPO Feb 19 2001 finding no rights

in the Policy is the passive holding of a 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 name satisfies the requirement of Paragraph 4 a iii of the

that the Respondent s passive holding of the domain name in this particular case satisfies the requirement of Paragraph 4 a iii that the domain name creditlibanais.net is being used in bad faith by Respondent 7 Decision The Panel thus

5.4 The Respondent has been passively holding the website for the last two years All attempts to visit the website www.biccamera.com have failed B The Respondent has not filed any response in these proceedings 6 Discussion and findings Paragraph

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 & Am Vintage Wine Biscuits Inc v Brown D2000-0004 WIPO Feb 16 2000 holding that Respondent s failure to

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 In this dispute Respondent registered uhal.com decades after Complaint

panels have found that a passive holding of a Domain Name can constitute use of that Domain Name in bad faith after carefully considering all the circumstances of the case e.g Guerlain S.A v Peikang WIPO Case No D2000-0055 B Respondent

as early as November 2001 The passive holding of the Domain Name is in a manner constituting bad faith use Telstra s use of its trademark predates the registration of the Domain Name by at least 6 years Respondent knew or ought to have known of

to explain the reason for holding registration rights in the domain name and not using it to resolve to a website with content Passively holding a domain name that incorporates another entity s trademark does not constitute a bona fide offering

in April 2002 The passive holding of domain names is not considered to be in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 c i or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy