Respondent with regard to its passively held domain name See Caravan Club v Mrgsale FA 95314 Nat Arb Forum Aug 30 2000 finding that Respondent made no use of the domain name or website that connects with the domain name and that passive holding of

Bad Faith Respondent has been passively holding the disputed domain names since 1998 Respondent has not developed a website or used the domain names in any other manner After Respondent has passively held a domain name for two years a presumption

for the domain name before passive holding constitutes bad faith However in the present case Respondent has passively held the domain name which incorporates a fanciful mark for over a year and has failed to articulate a planned use Therefore

on the notion that the passive holding of a domain name without putting it to any use when considered in conjunction with the other circumstances of the case may support a finding of bad faith See CBS Broadcasting Inc vs Edward Enterprises

Registration coupled with passive holding of a domain name without tangible evidence of intent to use the domain name supports the inference that Respondent has no legitimate rights or interests in the domain name pursuant to Policy Paragraph

in a situation involving a passive holding of the domain name registration Of course these three paragraphs require additional facts an intention to sell rent or transfer the registration for paragraph 4 b i a pattern of conduct preventing a

panels have also noted that passive holding or non-use of a domain name is evidence of a lack of legitimate rights in the domain name See e.g Paws Inc v Garfieldonline.com NAF Case No FA-097328 Victoria s Secret v This Domain Name For Sale NAF

L.F.P Inc v Viper Holdings Claim Number FA0208000117869 PARTIES Complainant is L.F.P Inc Beverly Hills CA Complainant represented by Paul J Cambria of Lipsitz Green Fahringer Roll Salisbury & Cambria LLP Respondent is Viper Holdings San

have determined that the passive holding of a domain name for over two years satisfies a finding of bad faith registration and use under Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See DCI S.A v Link Commercial Corp D2000-1232 WIPO Dec 7 2000 concluding that

together with Respondents passive holding of the Domain Name for four years with no apparent use or preparations to use it as well as Respondents default and thus lack of any response or explanation of any of the above matters lead the Panel to

purposes constitutes a passive holding which is evidence of bad faith See State Automobile Mutual Insurance Company v Lr3 Enterprises Inc NAF Claim No FA0012000096256 citing Cruzeiro Licenciamentos Ltda v Sallen Enterprises and J.D Sallen

to use it for any reason Passive holding of a domain name for such a length of time is considered to be evidence of bad faith use pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See DCI S.A v Link Commercial Corp D2000-1232 WIPO Dec 7 2000 concluding

the Panel finding of passive holding Various panels have held that passive holding coupled with a respondent knowledge of trademark rights of a complainant in the name being so held as is clearly the case here can amount to bad faith use

D2000-0003 February 18 2000 passive holding of a domain name constitutes bad faith where inter alia Respondent took deliberate steps to conceal its identity by providing false contact information 4 The Respondent has used the confusingly similar

Respondent s registration and passive holding of other domain names having potential commercial value It appears that Mark Kachadourian formed Respondent Noramar Enterprises using the alias Mark Kach in order to create a front or straw party to

and the Respondent s lengthy passive holding of the Domain Name Marks that have a high degree of inherent or acquired distinctiveness are entitled to a greater scope of protection than others See Digital City Inc v Smalldomain WIPO Case No

Accordingly it argues that passive holding of the domain name for four years does not represent a bona fide offering of goods or services nor does it constitute fair use Complainant claims that Respondent has no connection with Complainant s

Also Internet Holding asserts Trinity has adduced no evidence that Internet Holding registered the domain name for the purpose of diverting Trinity customers to a dead end online location With respect to passive holding Internet

in bad faith The subsequent passive holding of the domain name for the purpose of interfering with the administrative proceeding also constitutes use of the domain name in bad faith The Panel finds that the Respondent acquired and is using the

the website and that it is passively holding the website This is a sign of bad faith The Respondent registered the Domain Name for the purpose of preventing the Complainant from using its mark in a corresponding domain name B Respondent The