DECISION

 

The Trustees of Davidson College Corp. v. Dominic Davidson

Claim Number: FA2511002190759

 

PARTIES

Complainant is The Trustees of Davidson College Corp. ("Complainant"), represented by Amanda L. DeFord of McGuireWoods LLP, Virginia, USA. Respondent is Dominic Davidson ("Respondent"), represented by James Jacobi of Hesketh Henry, New Zealand.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <davidson.one> (the "Disputed Domain Name"), registered with Spaceship, Inc (the "Registrar").

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Ivett Paulovics as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on November 24, 2025; Forum received payment on November 24, 2025.

 

On November 25, 2025, the Registrar confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the Disputed Domain Name is registered with the Registrar and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. The Registrar has verified that Respondent is bound by the Registrar's 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 November 25, 2025, Forum notified the Complainant about the deficiency of the Complaint, setting a deadline of 5 calendar days to "Amend the Complaint to properly identify the Respondent and its contact information, using the Registrar's email Verification (attached) for reference."

 

On the same day, Complainant submitted an Amended Complaint to Forum.

 

Upon receipt, Forum served the Amended Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 15, 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@davidson.one. Also on November 25, 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 December 15, 2025.

 

On December 15, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Ivett Paulovics as Panelist.

 

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 Disputed Domain Name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

Respondent requests that the remedy requested by Complainant be denied.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant asserts rights in a family of registered trademarks incorporating the term DAVIDSON, including DAVIDSON COLLEGE, DAVIDSON, DAVIDSON & Design, and DAVIDSON WILDCATS, which have been used continuously in connection with educational, athletic, and related goods and services since at least 1837. These marks are registered in the United States and, with one exception, have achieved incontestable status.

 

Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is virtually identical and confusingly similar to Complainant's DAVIDSON family of marks, as it wholly incorporates the dominant and distinctive element "DAVIDSON." According to Complainant, the addition of the generic top-level domain ".one" does not distinguish the Disputed Domain Name from Complainant's marks. Complainant further argues that use of the ".one" gTLD increases confusion, as Complainant offers legitimate services branded as "Davidson One" through its official sub-domain <one.davidson.edu>, thereby reinforcing an association between the terms "Davidson" and "One" in the minds of the relevant public.

 

Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Complainant states that Respondent has never been licensed, authorized, or otherwise permitted to use the DAVIDSON family of marks and is not affiliated with Complainant in any manner.

 

According to Complainant, Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name or by any name corresponding to the DAVIDSON family of marks. Complainant further asserts that Respondent has not used, nor made demonstrable preparations to use, the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the Disputed Domain Name resolves to a parked webpage displaying registrar-related content, which Complainant argues does not constitute a legitimate use under the Policy.

 

Complainant contends that Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. Given the long-standing use, reputation, and distinctiveness of the DAVIDSON family of marks, Complainant argues that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant and its trademark rights at the time of registration.

 

Complainant asserts that Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name to create a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's marks, particularly in light of Complainant's "Davidson One" services, and to mislead Internet users seeking Complainant's official online resources. Complainant further argues that Respondent's passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name through a parked page constitutes bad faith use, as Respondent can redirect the Disputed Domain Name for misleading or unlawful purposes at any time.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent acknowledges that Complainant owns trademark registrations for the term DAVIDSON in the United States. Respondent submits, however, that the existence of these trademark rights does not, in itself, preclude Respondent from registering or retaining the Disputed Domain Name and is only one element of the analysis under Policy paragraph 4(a).

 

Respondent contends that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name pursuant to Policy paragraph 4(c).

 

Respondent asserts that "Davidson" is Respondent's surname and that Respondent is commonly known by that name. Respondent provides evidence of Respondent's identity and submits that Complainant's allegation that Respondent is not known by the name "Davidson" is incorrect.

 

Respondent further contends that, prior to any notice of the dispute, Respondent undertook demonstrable preparations to use "Davidson" in connection with bona fide personal and business activities. Respondent states that Respondent incorporated a company named DAVIDSON NEW ZEALAND LIMITED in June 2023 and registered multiple domain names incorporating "Davidson" well before the present dispute, including domains intended for family-related and business-related use.

 

With respect to the Disputed Domain Name specifically, Respondent submits that it was registered on 15 October 2025 as part of a broader effort to consolidate domain names corresponding to Respondent's personal name and family identity, contemporaneously with the registration of other "Davidson"-related domain names. Respondent contends that these actions constitute demonstrable preparations for a bona fide use and were not intended to target Complainant.

 

Respondent states that Respondent intends to use the Disputed Domain Name in connection with Respondent's own personal and family-related online presence, such as a central portal or email domain. Respondent denies any intent to capitalize on Complainant's reputation and contends that the term "Davidson" was selected solely for its intrinsic value as Respondent's surname.

 

Respondent also contends that current use of the Disputed Domain Name is legitimate and noncommercial. Respondent notes that the Disputed Domain Name resolves to a basic registrar parking page with no commercial content, advertising, or references to Complainant, and asserts that there is no intent to mislead Internet users or to tarnish Complainant's marks.

 

Respondent contends that the Disputed Domain Name was neither registered nor is being used in bad faith. Respondent submits that none of the non-exclusive circumstances of bad faith set out in Policy paragraph 4(b) are present.

 

Respondent denies any intent to sell the Disputed Domain Name to Complainant or to any third party for profit and states that Respondent has never offered the Disputed Domain Name for sale. Respondent further denies any pattern of registering domain names to prevent trademark owners from reflecting their marks in corresponding domain names, noting that Respondent's other "Davidson" domain names relate exclusively to Respondent's own personal or business interests.

 

Respondent also contends that Respondent is not a competitor of Complainant and had no intent to disrupt Complainant's activities. Respondent asserts that ownership of a single ".one" domain could not plausibly disrupt the operations of a long-established educational institution operating under its own official domain names.

 

Finally, Respondent denies any intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating confusion with Complainant's marks. Respondent emphasizes that the Disputed Domain Name is inactive, contains no content referencing Complainant, and has not been used for pay-per-click advertising, impersonation, or other misleading purposes. Respondent argues that passive holding of a domain name corresponding to one's own surname, absent evidence of targeting, does not amount to bad faith registration or use under the Policy.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant is The Trustees of Davidson College Corp., the governing body of Davidson College, a higher education institution established in 1837 in the United States.

 

Complainant owns multiple United States trademark registrations incorporating the term DAVIDSON, including registrations for DAVIDSON, DAVIDSON COLLEGE, and DAVIDSON WILDCATS, which are used in connection with educational, athletic, and related goods and services.

 

Respondent is Dominic Davidson, an individual residing in New Zealand.

 

The Disputed Domain Name was registered on October 15, 2025. At the time of this proceeding, the Disputed Domain Name resolves to a registrar-provided landing page and does not display active content.

 

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 the order that the Disputed Domain Name be transferred:

 

(1)       the Disputed Domain Name 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 Disputed Domain Name; and

(3)       the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

Only if all three elements are satisfied will the Panel order the transfer of the Disputed Domain Name to Complainant. If any of the elements is not satisfied, the Complaint must be denied and the domain name registration will remain with Respondent.

 

The burden of proof rests with Complainant. The applicable standard of proof in proceedings under the Policy is the balance of probabilities, meaning that a party must demonstrate that it is more likely than not that a claimed fact is true.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The first element of the Policy functions primarily as a standing requirement. Where a complainant holds a nationally or regionally registered trademark or service mark, this prima facie satisfies the threshold requirement of having trademark rights for purposes of standing to file a UDRP case. See Quora, Inc. v. Jon Ban, FA 1997021 (Forum July 22, 2022).

 

Once a complainant has established trademark rights, the panel assesses whether the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that mark. This test involves a straightforward comparison of the alphanumeric domain name and the textual elements of the trademark to determine whether the mark is recognizable within the domain name. Where a domain name wholly incorporates the complainant's mark—or where a dominant element remains clearly recognizable—the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar. See Google LLC v. Domain Manager, FA 1755084 (Forum Jan. 18, 2018). The applicable top-level domain is disregarded in this analysis as a functional element of registration. See The Regents of The University of Michigan v. Jason Ferrantello, FA 2019913 (Forum Dec. 29, 2022).

 

In this case, Complainant relies on United States federal trademark registrations for DAVIDSON (Reg. Nos. 2,784,338; 2,784,337; and 4,583,032), DAVIDSON COLLEGE (Reg. No. 2,775,737), and DAVIDSON WILDCATS (Reg. No. 6,383,867) (collectively, the "DAVIDSON Trademark").

 

Respondent does not dispute that Complainant has rights in the DAVIDSON Trademark in the United States.

 

The Panel therefore finds that Complainant has established trademark rights for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

 

The Panel further finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's DAVIDSON Trademark, as it incorporates the mark, or at least its distinctive element, in its entirety, namely "DAVIDSON".

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the first element of Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, the complainant bears the burden of establishing that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name. Once the complainant makes a prima facie showing that the respondent lacks such rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to present evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014).

 

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out a non-exhaustive list of circumstances by which a respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests, including:

 

(i) before any notice of the dispute, he used or made demonstrable preparations to use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

(ii) he (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if he has not acquired trademark or service mark rights; or

(iii) he is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the complainant's mark.

 

In the present case, the Panel finds that Complainant established a prima facie case at the time the Complaint was filed. The registration data for the Disputed Domain Name was initially redacted, Respondent's identity was unknown, the Disputed Domain Name was confusingly similar to Complainant's DAVIDSON Trademark, Complainant had not authorized Respondent to use its mark, and the Disputed Domain Name resolved to the Registrar's landing page. After receiving the Registrar's Verification identifying Respondent as Dominic Davidson, an individual residing in New Zealand, Complainant maintained its position that Respondent was not known by the name "Davidson".

 

In his Response, Respondent has provided documentary evidence, including: 

-       a copy of Respondent's New Zealand passport, issued on October 3, 2024, showing Respondent's surname is Davidson;

-       a certificate of incorporation issued by the New Zealand Companies Office confirming the incorporation of Davidson New Zealand Limited by Respondent on June 8, 2023.

 

The Panel sees no reason to doubt the authenticity of this evidence.

 

On this basis, the Panel finds that Respondent is commonly known by the name "Davidson", which corresponds exactly to the Disputed Domain Name. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has established rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name under Paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy. See Mattel, Inc. v. Gopi Mattel, FA 372847 (Forum Feb. 15, 2005); see also Stephen L. Tucker v. Joseph Golio, FA 1796141 (Forum July 27, 2018) and Webster Financial Corporation and Webster Bank, National Association v. Brent Webster, FA 1989747 (Forum May 12, 2022).

 

The Panel further notes, secondarily, that Respondent has demonstrated preparatory steps consistent with a bona fide personal and family-related use of the Disputed Domain Name. The Disputed Domain Name was registered contemporaneously with other domain names incorporating Respondent's full name and family name, including <dominicdavidson.com> and <davidsonfamily.net>, as evidenced by the WHOIS records submitted. Respondent has provided a plausible explanation that these registrations form part of a broader effort to consolidate domain names corresponding to Respondent's personal and family identity. These circumstances further support Respondent's rights or legitimate interests under Paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy.

 

The Panel also considers that, given the very recent registration of the Disputed Domain Name, its resolution to the Registrar's landing page does not, in itself, indicate any targeting of Complainant or its DAVIDSON Trademark. Respondent's surname is Davidson, Respondent resides in New Zealand, and Complainant has provided no evidence of the reputation or recognition of its DAVIDSON Trademark in that jurisdiction. "Davidson" is a common surname in English-speaking countries. There is nothing in the record indicating that Respondent sought to capitalize on Complainant's goodwill, to mislead Internet users, or to tarnish Complainant's mark.

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has failed to satisfy Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

In light of the Panel's finding that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name, the Panel declines to address Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

 

DECISION

Having not established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <davidson.one> domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.

 

 

 

Ivett Paulovics, Panelist

Dated: December 29, 2025