DECISION

 

West Shore Home, LLC v. Steve Garguilo

Claim Number: FA2508002173754

 

PARTIES

Complainant is West Shore Home, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Charles A. Hooker of Hooker & Habib, P.C., Pennsylvania, USA. Respondent is Steve Garguilo ("Respondent"), represented by Kevin V. Horne, Pennsylvania, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES 

The domain names at issue are <westshorehomefield.com> and <westshorehomesfield.com> (the "Disputed Domain Names"), registered with Name.com, Inc.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Bart Van Besien as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 26, 2025; Forum received payment on August 26, 2025.

 

On August 28, 2025, Name.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <westshorehomefield.com> and <westshorehomesfield.com> domain names are registered with Name.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Name.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Name.com, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").

 

On September 3, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 23, 2025, by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@westshorehomefield.com, postmaster@westshorehomesfield.com. Also on September 3, 2025, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.

 

A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on September 23, 2025.

 

On September 24, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Bart Van Besien as Panelist.

 

On October 1, 2025, Complainant filed a supplemental statement. 

 

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

The Complainant provides home renovation and remodeling services throughout the United States. The Complainant owns various US trademarks WEST SHORE HOME and WEST SHORE (see below under "Findings" and further referred to hereafter as the "Trademarks"). The Complainant states the Trademarks are distinctive because of the Complainant's widescale and continuous use since July 1, 2007.

 

In March 2025, the Complainant entered into a $50 million naming rights agreement with Penn State University, whereby it obtained the right to rename the university's football field at Beaver Stadium to "West Shore Home Field at Beaver Stadium" until 2040.

 

Penn State University's Board of Trustees publicly announced a special meeting to approve this branding initiative on March 7, 2025, and distributed a Recommendation Memo and presentation about the proposed name "West Shore Home Field" for the field at Beaver Stadium. The naming initiative was covered by news articles on March 8, 2025. The Board meeting itself took place on March 10, 2025.

 

On March 9, 2025, shortly after the Penn State University's announcement, the Respondent registered the two disputed domain names.

 

These domain names redirect to an old online petition at <change.org> advocating for renaming the field "Paterno Field" after former coach Joe Paterno, whose legacy is controversial due to a child sexual abuse scandal whereby former assistant coach Jerry Sandusky was convicted.

 

The Complainant alleges this redirection deliberately dilutes its brand, creates a false association with the scandal, disrupts its $50M branding initiative in "West Shore Home Field at Beaver Stadium", and diverts potential customers away from the Complainant's business.

 

The Complainant argues that the disputed domain names are identical to its Trademarks since the disputed domain names include the Trademarks in their entirety, merely adding the non-distinctive word "FIELD", the letter "S" and the generic Top-Level Domain ".com".

 

The Complainant states that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate rights in the disputed domain names. The Complainant emphasizes its own common-law trademark rights since July 1, 2007, and its federal trademark application rights into the Trademarks since October 2, 2015 (i.e., for the WEST SHORE mark, no. 4,968,264). The Respondent makes no legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names. The Complainant further asserts that the Respondent has made an illegitimate, commercial, unfair use, intended for commercial gain and/or to divert or reroute individuals searching for the Complainant to its own website (which redirects to <change.org>) and/or to disrupt the Complainant's business. The Complainant further emphasizes that it has not authorized the Respondent to use its Trademarks in the domain names, and that there is no relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent entitling the latter to use the Complainant's Trademarks.

 

The Complainant claims that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith, for various reasons:

-       The Respondent intends to misdirect internet users seeking information about the Complainant to a decade-old inactive petition at the <change.org> website, creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's Trademarks and/or suggesting that the Complainant supports the legacy of Mr. Joe Paterno, a former football coach at Pennsylvania State University and linked with a child sexual abuse scandal, thus tarnishing the Complainant's Trademarks;

-       The Respondent intends to misdirect internet users seeking information about the Complainant's branding efforts from its promotion of the "West Shore Home Field at Beaver Stadium" to an old and inactive petition on the change.org website to rename the field "Paterno Field", creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's Trademarks and/or confuse the Complainant's potential customers and disrupt its business;

-       The Respondent intends to deceptively route internet users who mistakenly type in the domain names as a typo of the Complainant's own domain name <westshorehome.com> to confuse the Complainant's potential customers and to disrupt its business.

 

The Complainant emphasizes the timing of the domain registration: the Respondent registered the domain names on March 9, 2025, shortly after Penn State University's public announcement of the naming rights deal on March 7, 2025. According to the Complainant, this shows knowledge and targeting.

 

The Complainant further underscores that its Trademarks were registered and widely recognized many years before the registration of the domain names, having been promoted through hundreds of millions of dollars in advertising. The Complainant argues that the Respondent's actions interfere with its $50 million "West Shore Home Field at Beaver Stadium" branding initiative and that the use of a privacy registration service further supports bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

The Respondent denies all allegations of cybersquatting and asserts that the disputed domain names were registered to create "Westshore Homefield," a community sports blog covering high school and amateur sports in the Westshore region of British Columbia. While the website was being built, the domains were temporarily redirected to a noncommercial <change.org> petition about naming Penn State's football field "Paterno Field," which the Respondent characterizes as sports commentary and protected free speech, not commercial use or bad faith.

 

The Respondent states that the domain names are not identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's Trademarks, pointing to the following elements:

 

-       The term "Westshore" is geographic — referring to a region in British Columbia. "Homefield" is a sports term and a dictionary word.

-       The industry, geography, and audience differ (sports blog in Westshore, British Columbia vs. U.S. home renovation company).

-       The Complainant's own admission that the redirect content "does not relate to Complainant or Complainant's business" defeats any claim of confusion or diversion.

-       The second domain name, <westshorehomesfield.com>, was a defensive registration to prevent misspellings and maintain project consistency.

-       The Respondent invokes fair use and free speech protections — both uses (the petition and the blog) fall within legitimate noncommercial commentary.

 

The Respondent claims to have rights or legitimate interests in the domain names, pointing to the following elements:

 

-       The Respondent had demonstrable preparations to use the domains for a blog, including drafts of blog posts and a logo.

-       During development, temporarily linking the domains to a noncommercial petition is consistent with fair use and commentary.

-       The Complainant's claim of "commercial diversion" is contradicted by its own admission that the Change.org page is unrelated to its business.

-       The Respondent also challenges Complainant's portrayal of Joe Paterno as "linked to a child sexual abuse scandal," arguing that this framing is inaccurate and inflammatory and that even Complainant's own CEO publicly stated that the Complainant had "nothing but respect for Coach Paterno's legacy." Therefore, Complainant's claim of tarnishment is inconsistent and self-damaging.

 

Finally, the Respondent argues there is no bad faith registration or use of the disputed domain names, pointing to the following elements:

 

-       There is no commercial gain since the domains were never monetized. Also, there is no competition since a community sports blog does not compete with a U.S. home renovation company.

-       The temporary redirect was to a third-party petition of a non-commercial nature and did not refer to the Complainant.

-       Timing alone is insufficient: Registering the domains near the time of Penn State University's announcement is not bad faith absent evidence of commercial exploitation or intent to sell.

-       Redirecting to a Change.org petition constitutes legitimate noncommercial speech, not tarnishment or deception.

 

C. Complainant's additional submissions

On October 1, 2025, the Complainant filed a Supplemental Statement. While the acceptance of unsolicited supplemental submissions lies within the Panel's discretion, the Panel determines to accept and consider the Complainant's Supplemental Statement, which may be summarized as follows:

 

-       The Respondent's filing introduced misstatements and irrelevant matters, particularly concerning the company's alleged views about former Penn State football coach Joe Paterno. The Complainant clarified that neither it nor its CEO holds any negative sentiment toward Mr. Paterno or seeks to diminish his legacy. The references in the original complaint were only made to provide historical context and to illustrate the range of public perceptions of Mr. Paterno's legacy.

-       The Respondent's arguments about its community sports blog for the Westshore region of British Columbia are irrelevant and unsupported by evidence. The website material was created only after the Respondent had received notice of the dispute in September 2025.

-       The Respondent's newly created website was not in fact noncommercial, as he claimed, but included references to "costs" and payment requirements for athletic training services. This demonstrated that the website has a commercial component and that the Respondent's conduct was inconsistent with his portrayal of a purely community-based or noncommercial initiative.

-       The Respondent's mailing address in State College, Pennsylvania is indicative of a relationship with Penn State University rather than with a region in British Columbia. The Complainant highlighted that the Respondent attended Penn State, co-hosts a podcast devoted to Penn State football, and has a documented history of advocating for the university to honor Joe Paterno. These facts, combined with the timing of the domain registrations, show that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant's Trademarks and naming initiative and acted with opportunistic bad faith.

-       The Complainant rejected the Respondent's reliance on free-speech and fair-use arguments. Noncommercial criticism is generally not protected when it involves domain names that are (nearly) identical to a trademark. Given the Complainant's strong commercial presence, the disputed domain names would naturally be understood as part of its advertising strategy rather than as independent commentary.

-       Finally, the Complainant urged the Panel to disregard the Respondent's newly created website and post-filing evidence and to view his narrative as an attempt to disguise his true motives. It emphasized that the Respondent, a Penn State alumnus with a record of promoting the Paterno legacy, registered the domain names precisely to interfere with the Complainant's naming-rights deal and to divert Internet users seeking information about "West Shore Home Field" to a petition opposing that initiative. The subsequent launch of a supposed sports blog in a region 3,000 miles away was merely an afterthought designed to manufacture a defense.

 

FINDINGS

The Complainant submitted trademark registration certificates for the following trademarks (hereafter the "Trademarks"):

 

·       US Service mark (combined word figurative mark), WEST SHORE HOME, no. 6,400,683, registered on June 29, 2021, first used on January 31, 2018, filed on September 10, 2020, in Int. class 37 ("Home renovation services; Home remodeling services in the nature of the reconstruction and repair of homes").

·       US Service mark, WEST SHORE HOME (word mark), no. 5,746,115, registered on May 7, 2019, first used on February 28, 2018, filed on March 16, 2017, in Int. class 37 ("Home renovation services; Home remodeling services in the nature of the reconstruction and repair of homes").

·       US Service mark (word mark), WEST SHORE, no. 4,968,264, registered on May 31, 2016, first used on July 1, 2010, and filed on October 2, 2015, in Int.class 37 ("Home renovation and remodeling services").

 

From the trademark registration certificates submitted by the Complainant, the Panel notes that the first Trademark mentioned above (no. 6,400,683) is indeed registered in name of the Complainant (West Shore Home, LLC), but that the other two Trademarks (no. 5,746,115 and no. 4,968,264) are registered by a distinct company, named West Shore Window & Door, Inc. From a search in the publicly available trademark databases, the Panel understands that the second and third Trademarks mentioned above (no. 5,746,115 and no. 4,968,264) are currently registered in name of the Complainant.

 

The Complainant has shown that it has made effective use of its Trademarks, for home renovation and remodeling services.

 

In March 2025, the Complainant entered into a $50 million naming rights agreement with Penn State University, granting it the right to rename the university's football field at Beaver Stadium as "West Shore Home Field at Beaver Stadium" through 2040.

 

Penn State University's Board of Trustees publicly announced a special meeting on March 7, 2025 to approve the branding initiative and distributed a Recommendation Memo and presentation regarding the proposed name "West Shore Home Field." The initiative received media coverage, including an article published on March 8, 2025, by StateCollege.com.

 

The Board of Trustees met on March 10, 2025, to vote on the proposal. During the meeting, some trustees suggested renaming the field "Paterno Field at Beaver Stadium" in honor of former coach Joe Paterno. However, the Board ultimately approved the name "West Shore Home Field" for a 15-year term.

 

Following the approval, the decision was again covered in the media, including on GoPSUSports.com (March 10, 2025), SI.com (March 13, 2025), and CentreDaily.com (March 16, 2025).

 

On March 9, 2025, shortly after Penn State University's announcement and before its approval, the Respondent registered the two disputed domain names.

 

Initially, the domain names redirected to an old, inactive Change.org petition advocating for renaming the field "Paterno Field" after Joe Paterno. Although the exhibits submitted by the parties do not display the URLs showing this redirection, both parties have confirmed that the redirection occurred. The petition had 76,000 supporters and is closed. The webpage contained mixed comments regarding Mr. Paterno's legacy. It made no reference to the Complainant. Currently, the domain names host a website featuring coverage of high school sports in the Westshore region of British Columbia, Canada.

 

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."

 

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:

 

(1)       the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

(2)       Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(3)       the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain names incorporate the Complainant's WEST SHORE HOME (and WEST SHORE) Trademarks in their entirety, with the addition of the word "FIELD", the letter "S" (for the second domain), and the generic ".com" Top-Level Domain.

 

When a domain name wholly incorporates a trademark, the addition of a merely descriptive term such as "FIELD" or a single letter such as "S", does not prevent the finding of confusing similarity (see e.g., J.R. Simplot Company v. De Marshal, FA2404002092797 (Forum May 7, 2024); Blackstone TM L.L.C. v. Walker Blakney, FA2404002092978 (Forum May 7, 2024); Freestone Capital Management, LLC v. Paul Attwood, FA2401002078420 (Forum Jan. 31, 2024); Cadence Design Systems, Inc. v. James Vada, FA2310002068945 (Forum Nov. 25, 2023)). This principle applies even more strongly in the present case, as the term "FIELD" directly references the Complainant's recent naming-rights initiative with Penn State University and therefore increases, rather than reduces, the likelihood of confusion.

 

The disputed domain names also consist of the generic ".com" Top-Level Domain (gTLD). The addition of this gTLD does not add distinctiveness to the disputed domain names. It is well established that the gTLD may be disregarded when it comes to considering whether a domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark to which the Complainant has rights (see f.e. Abbott Laboratories v. Whois Service c/o Belize Domain WHOIS Service, FA1254682 (Forum May 14, 2009).)

 

The Panel concludes that the domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's Trademarks under the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

As regards paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, the overall burden of proof rests with the Complainant. However, it is well established that this burden does not require the Complainant to prove a negative, which would often be impossible. Accordingly, numerous prior panels have held that the Complainant must make out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once such a prima facie case is established, the burden of production shifts to the Respondent to come forward with appropriate allegations or evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests. If the Respondent fails to provide such evidence, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii). If the Respondent does submit some evidence or arguments, the Panel must then assess all of the evidence, with the ultimate burden of proof remaining on the Complainant.

 

There is no evidence that the Respondent is, or has ever been, commonly known by the disputed domain names or by the terms "WESTSHOREHOMEFIELD" or "WESTSHOREHOMESFIELD" or any variations thereof. The WHOIS record contains no indication that the Respondent has any rights to or legitimate interests in those terms. The Respondent does not claim to be commonly known by the disputed domain names or by either of those expressions. Nor does the Respondent deny that he has no affiliation, authorization, or license from the Complainant, and no business or other relationship with it.

 

These facts suffice to establish a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain names. The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has met its initial burden under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, and that the burden of production has shifted to the Respondent to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.

 

In this case, the domain names consist of the Complainant's Trademark WEST SHORE HOME in its entirety, combined with the word "FIELD", and, in the second domain name, the additional letter "S." These additions are not comparable to the addition of critical terms such as "critic" or "sucks." On the contrary, the inclusion of the term "FIELD" creates, contrary to the Respondent's argument, an enhanced risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant. It gives users the false impression that the domain names (and the website accessible through them) provide information about the Complainant's agreement with Penn State University to rename the football field at Beaver Stadium as "West Shore Home Field." At the very least, the use of the Complainant's Trademark in its entirety, together with the term "FIELD," creates a likelihood of confusion among Internet users. The purported "criticism" purpose is not apparent from the domain names themselves.

 

As a general matter, even if the content of the Respondent's website could be protected under principles of freedom of expression, such protection does not automatically confer rights or legitimate interests in a domain name that wholly incorporates the Complainant's trademark, particularly when combined with a term directly linked to the Complainant's commercial activities.

 

The Panel finds that, in the specific circumstances of this case, the Respondent's asserted purposes of "criticism" and "sports journalism" are unconvincing.

 

Original Use of the Domain Names

The Panel is not persuaded that the Respondent's original use of the domain names constituted a genuine exercise of criticism or free speech. The Respondent merely redirected the domain names to an old, inactive <change.org> petition seeking to rename the field at Beaver Stadium in honor of coach Paterno. That webpage made no reference to the Complainant's more recent naming rights and contained no criticism of the Complainant whatsoever.

 

This is particularly relevant because the Respondent used the Complainant's Trademark in full within the domain names, without adding any term that would distance himself from the Complainant. On the contrary, by adding the word "FIELD," the Respondent reinforced the impression of a connection to the Complainant's recently announced naming initiative.

 

Under paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy, a respondent's criticism must be both genuine and noncommercial. In the present case, however, the issue is not so much whether the alleged criticism is genuine or noncommercial, but whether any criticism exists at all. The Panel finds that it does not. For several months, the Respondent used the domain names only to redirect to an old, inactive online petition, without providing any form of commentary, criticism, or free speech regarding the Complainant or its naming rights agreement with Penn State University. The Panel acknowledges that the naming announcement took place amid public debate and extensive media coverage concerning the field's name. However, the essential fact in this case is that the Respondent used the disputed domain names - each incorporating the Complainant's Trademarks - solely to redirect users to an inactive petition relating to a prior naming initiative that did not involve the Complainant. The Respondent did not use the domains for any genuine exercise of free speech regarding the Complainant.

 

The Respondent's registration of the domain names on March 9, 2025, immediately after Penn State University's public announcement on March 7, 2025, demonstrates a clear link between the Respondent's registration and the university's announcement.

 

Even if the Respondent's website were considered a genuine criticism site, prior UDRP panels have found that the right to criticize does not necessarily extend to registering or using a domain name identical or nearly identical to a complainant's trademark (i.e., <trademark.tld>), if such use creates an impermissible risk of user confusion through impersonation. In this case, the disputed domain names are virtually identical to the Complainant's trademarks, differing by the addition of the descriptive term "FIELD," which directly references the Complainant's naming initiative and enhances, rather than reduces, confusion.

 

The Panel finds that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names primarily to prevent the Complainant from registering them and to obstruct the Complainant's legitimate business activities, while fully aware both of the Complainant's recent naming-rights agreement for the field and of the fact that the domain names wholly incorporate the Complainant's Trademark.

 

Current Use of the Domain Names

Between the filing of the Complaint and the submission of the Response, the Respondent launched a minimal website entitled "Westshore Homefield", purportedly covering high school sports in the Westshore region of British Columbia, Canada. The Panel finds that this "sports blog" appears to be a pretext—an attempt to fabricate a legitimate purpose and avoid transfer of the domain names in this proceeding.

 

The Panel notes the following factors:

 

The Respondent has not convincingly explained why he chose the words "WESTSHORE" and "HOMEFIELD" in combination. If the Respondent's true intent was to create a local high school sports blog for a region coincidentally called "Westshore," there was no reason to include the confusing term "HOMEFIELD," which directly echoes the Complainant's Trademarks and naming initiative. While the term "home field" can indeed refer to a sporting context, it is conventionally written as two separate words rather than as the single compound word used by the Respondent. The Respondent's addition of the letter "S" in one of the domain names ("homesfield")—a construction with no recognized meaning—further weakens his claim of legitimacy and indicates that he selected the domain names for their incorporation of the terms "WEST SHORE HOME(S) FIELD" rather than "WESTSHORE HOME(S)FIELD." In other words, the Respondent chose these domains for their connection to the Complainant's Trademarks, not for any genuine association with sporting activities in a distant region of Canada.

 

The Respondent offers no explanation for his choice to focus on this specific Canadian region and provides no evidence of any prior interest in or connection to it, particularly before the naming announcement in March 2025 or before the start of these proceedings.

 

The Respondent's website provides no information identifying its publisher, no contact details, and no legal disclosures (such as terms and conditions, privacy policy, or cookie policy).

 

Although the website claims to be a local community sports blog, it contains no genuine local engagement or verifiable connections to the Westshore community in British Columbia.

 

The timing and nature of this project do not persuade the Panel of any genuine local blogging intent. For approximately six months after registration, the domain names merely redirected to an inactive petition. Only after the commencement of this proceeding did the Respondent create a minimal sports blog with generic content and no credible background or connection to the chosen region. The Respondent provided no convincing evidence of preparations for this project before notice of the dispute - the draft blog posts he submitted lack creation dates or other indicators of authenticity.

 

On the balance of evidence, the Respondent's actions appear not to be motivated by any genuine journalistic or critical purpose. The Panel concludes that the Respondent's conduct demonstrates an intent to misleadingly divert Internet users and to block the Complainant from registering the domain names, rather than any bona fide exercise of free speech.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The Panel is of the opinion that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its Trademarks, when registering and using the domain names.

 

Given the fact that the domain names contain the Complainant's Trademarks in full, with the sole addition of the descriptive word "FIELD" (and a letter 'S' in the second domain name), and without any term indicating criticism of the Complainant, the domain names risk impersonating the Complainant or at least suggest affiliation with or endorsement by the Complainant. The fact that the Respondent uses a privacy service to hide his identity and does not provide any transparency at all about his identity on the current website available through the domain names, exacerbates the risk of confusion among users.

 

The so-called criticism and local sports blogging content on the website seems a mere pretext for other purposes or is at least insufficiently elaborated to justify use of the Complainant's Trademarks in the disputed domain names.

 

Before the start of this dispute, the Respondent used the domain names merely to redirect them to a decade-old, inactive petition about a closed initiative to name the field at Beaver Stadium after coach Paterno, without adding any commentary or criticism on the Complainant or its activities. This can hardly be considered as a genuine form of criticism, let alone a form of criticism that would allow unauthorized use of a protected trademark in a domain name. It seems that the Respondent tries to unfairly take advantage of the Complainant's Trademarks for purposes that go beyond free speech.

 

As concerns the subsequent use of the domains for a local sports blog covering the area of Westshore in British Columbia, as already explained above, this seems a pre-text and a fabrication after the start of this proceeding, only confirming that the Respondent registered and uses the domains in bad faith.

 

The timing of the Respondent's registration of the domain names, shortly after the public announcement of the Complainant's naming rights agreement with Penn State University, renders it highly implausible that the Respondent registered the domain names for the bona fide purpose of operating a sports blog about the Westshore region in British Columbia. As noted above, there is no demonstrable link between the Respondent and this geographic region, and the corresponding website appears to have been created only after the commencement of these proceedings. The choice of the term "homefield" in the domain names does not appear to have been inspired by the generic sports expression "home field," but rather to refer to the Complainant's trademark WEST SHORE HOME and the term "FIELD," which alludes to the football field at Beaver Stadium.

 

In its Supplemental Statement, the Complainant alleged that the Respondent is a Penn State alumnus with a record of promoting the Paterno legacy and that he serves as a co-host of the podcast "Let's Talk Penn State." Although this allegation is not supported by evidence, it has not been contested by the Respondent. In any event, the undisputed fact that the Respondent redirected the disputed domain names to an old online petition advocating the renaming of the field at Beaver Stadium, shortly after the university's public announcement, demonstrates that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant's naming-rights agreement for the field at the time of registration and acted in an opportunistic manner to interfere with the Complainant's naming arrangement.

 

Since the Complainant stated in its Supplemental Statement that it has no interest in expressing negative sentiments toward coach Paterno or diminishing his contributions to Penn State University football, the Panel will not address the Complainant's initial arguments that the association with Mr. Paterno or his public perception constituted bad faith tarnishment of its Trademarks.

 

On the balance of probabilities, the Panel concludes that the Respondent registered the domain names with the intent to interfere with the Complainant's naming rights arrangement with Penn State University and to prevent the Complainant from registering and using those domain names for its business purposes. Such conduct constitutes evidence of registration and use in bad faith under paragraph 4(b) of the Policy.

 

The Panel determines that the Respondent intended to misleadingly divert Internet users to its own online presence and to prevent the Complainant from registering the domain names, thereby obstructing the Complainant's business activities, fully aware that the domain names incorporated the Complainant's Trademarks. The Panel concludes that the Respondent's conduct constitutes bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain names within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <westshorehomefield.com> and <westshorehomesfield.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Bart Van Besien, Panelist

Dated: October 8, 2025