DECISION

 

The University Athletic Association, Inc. v. Michael LeValley

Claim Number: FA2607002230489

 

PARTIES

Complainant is The University Athletic Association, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Meredith Frank Mendez of Malloy & Malloy, P.L., Florida, United States of America ("United States"). Respondent is Michael LeValley ("Respondent"), represented by Alexander P. Montgomery of Hinckley Allen & Synder LLP, Massachusetts, United States.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <theswamp.com> (the "disputed domain name"), registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

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.

 

 Lynda M. Braun as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 1, 2026; Forum received payment on July 1, 2026.

 

On July 2, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <theswamp.com> disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC 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 July 8, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 28, 2026 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@theswamp.com. Also on July 8, 2026, 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 July 28, 2026.

 

On July 29, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Lynda M. Braun 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 it should retain the disputed domain name and that the Panel should issue a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking against Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant is a Florida non-profit corporation that acts on behalf of the University of Florida (the "University"), its athletic department, and its athletic teams and organizations.  The University's athletic program is one of the best and most well known in the nation and is responsible for producing several famous athletes.  Since at least as early as 1911, the University's athletic teams have been known as the "Florida Gators" because the University's mascot is an alligator.

 

The University's football team plays in Ben Hill Griffin Stadium in Gainesville, Florida.  In 1992, football coach Steve Spurrier nicknamed Ben Hill Griffin Stadium "The Swamp".  As a result of the University's athletic successes, the University's teams and facilities, including Ben Hill Griffin Stadium or "The Swamp," have been extensively featured on television, in print, and in online media for decades nationwide.

 

Complainant owns common law rights in THE SWAMP mark in connection with entertainment services in the nature of football games and conducting social entertainment events at sports stadiums.  Complainant also owns a registered trademark for THE SWAMP through the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"), United States Registration No. 3,241,595, registered on May 15, 2007, with a first use in commerce of January 1, 1991, in International Class 25 (hereinafter referred to as "THE SWAMP Mark").  In view of the widespread acclaim of Complainant and the Ben Hill Griffin Stadium, or "The Swamp", Complainant's THE SWAMP Mark is well known to the general consuming public as a designation of source for its goods and services.

 

Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical to THE SWAMP Mark, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

 

Complainant further states that the disputed domain name was registered on April 19, 1997 and while the webpage to which the disputed domain name redirected is no longer active, the disputed domain name has been for sale for a number of years with a current listing price of USD 150,000.  Complainant continues to explain that the original website to which the disputed domain name redirected described the University's athletics program and Florida Gators teams – primarily, the football team, stating "This is… TheSwamp.com, Your Online Source for Florida Gator Athletics."  The website included sales of merchandise bearing Complainant's trademarks from which Respondent profited and Respondent also profited from third-party sponsorships of its website.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent sent an email communication to Forum on July 15, 2026, stating "I bought theswamp.com to do something completely different with it. I haven't had the time to use it so I listed it for sale at a high price for sale on Godaddy until I maybe would. It has never been used for anything since I bought it. And I haven't been made an offer for it that I can remember ever. … Please help me clear this up."  

 

On July 28, 2026, Respondent's counsel submitted a formal response to the Complaint, arguing that Respondent should retain registration and use of the disputed domain name for the reasons set forth below.

 

Although Respondent agrees with Complainant that the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant's THE SWAMP Mark, Respondent claims that it has rights and legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in good faith.

 

Respondent contends that it has rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name for the following reasons:  Respondent acquired the disputed domain name for fair value, paying USD 3,500 (plus an escrow fee) on December 5, 2016. The acquisition is supported by documented evidence submitted by Respondent as an Annex to the Response. Respondent claims that its acquisition postdates the 1999-2002 website on which the Complaint is based and Complainant's own evidence that the disputed domain name was already inactive and offered for sale as of July 2008. Moreover, Respondent alleges that the disputed domain name has remained inactive throughout the entirety of Respondent's ownership. Finally, Respondent claims that it has held the disputed domain name as one of several other domain names owned in the ordinary course of his various business activities, including the ownership and use of the SWAMP YANKEE family of marks.  For example, Respondent is the owner of United States Registration Nos. 6,834,109 and 5,073,453 for SWAMP YANKEE, as well as pending United States Serial No. 97/208,567 for the same mark, all of which Respondent has used and continues to use in connection with an active business operating under the SWAMP YANKEE name.  In addition, Respondent contends that it owns non-infringing domain names as part of its legal business model consisting of the buying and selling of generic domain names in good faith.

 

Respondent further contends that it did not register nor is it using the disputed domain name in bad faith as follows. Respondent had no knowledge of Complainant, the University, or Complainant's rights in THE SWAMP Mark when Respondent acquired the disputed domain name in 2016. Moreover, Respondent concedes that it offered the disputed domain name for sale at a listed price of USD 150,000, although the price was not calculated to extract payment from Complainant, but rather such sale was an offer to any interested purchaser.  Moreover, Respondent contends that such sales are permitted when an individual buys and sells domain names as part of a legitimate business model.  Respondent maintains that it has not used the disputed domain name to attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's trademark, and Respondent has not engaged in any pattern of registering domain names to prevent trademark owners from reflecting their marks online.

 

Finally, Respondent requests a finding of reverse domain name hijacking. Respondent argues that Complainant knew or should have known that it could not prevail on its bad faith allegations before filing the Complaint since Complainant's evidence identifies a party other than Respondent as responsible for the original website to which the disputed domain name resolved, although Complainant continues to assert that Respondent was responsible for creating the website that was live in or around 1999.  Thus, Respondent argues that Complainant did not conduct sufficient due diligence, or may have omitted that critical information intentionally and thus the reason for its request to the Panel to issue a finding of reverse domain name hijacking.

 

FINDINGS

The Panel finds that Complainant owns THE SWAMP Mark and has established rights in the registered mark per Policy paragraph 4(a)(i). Both Complainant and Respondent acknowledge that the disputed domain name is identical to THE SWAMP Mark and thus, there is no dispute over the first element of the Policy. However, the Panel finds that the evidence supports Respondent's contention that it has rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and has not registered nor is it using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Panel further finds that Complainant is subject to reverse domain name hijacking as it did not conduct sufficient due diligence and omitted critical information related to the ownership of the disputed domain name intentionally and carelessly.

 

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

There is no dispute as to the first element as Complainant and Respondent both agree that for purposes of the first element, which is essentially a standing requirement, the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant's THE SWAMP Mark.

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy paragraph 4(a)(i) has been established by Complainant.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In order for Complainant to succeed under this element, it must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) ("Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests"); see also Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).  Complainant owns rights in THE SWAMP Mark and claims that Respondent appropriated Complainant's longstanding goodwill and consumer recognition as Respondent's own for commercial gain. Complainant also asserts that Respondent has been using the disputed domain name and the associated website to divert consumers by confusing those consumers into believing that its website was affiliated with or sponsored by Complainant, profiting from third-party sponsorships and the sale of merchandise bearing Complainant's trademark.

 

Respondent counters and argues that Respondent has carried its burden to demonstrate that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.  The Panel concurs. The Panel finds Respondent's Response to be comprehensive and credible. It presented convincing documentary evidence to demonstrate that the disputed domain name was purchased from a prior owner on December 5, 2016 and that it closed the transaction through Escrow.com by making a payment of USD 3,500 (plus an escrow fee). The disputed domain name was one of several generic domain names Respondent acquired around that time. The purchase was part of an established conventional business operated by Respondent of acquiring and marketing generic word domain names. From 2016 forward, Respondent did not use the disputed domain name and eventually put it up for sale. Respondent submitted a WhoIs webpage from December 9, 2015, showing that the registrant of the disputed domain name when it acquired it was an individual named Sean Fletcher. In addition, and most significantly, Respondent demonstrated that Complainant's own Annex E-2 displayed the original website to which the disputed domain name redirected, but omitted the critical information that states "Web site design by Die-Hard-Bleeding-Orange-and-Blue Gator Sean Fletcher ('92) (emphasis added by Panel)."  Moreover, Complainant's own Annex E-3 also clearly reveals that Sean Fletcher was the creator of the website, stating at the bottom of the page "CyberSwamp Website design by Sean Fletcher (emphasis added by Panel)."

 

Complainant also argues that the sale of the disputed domain name for USD 150,000 demonstrates that Respondent did not have rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. However, the Panel disagrees. The business of investing in and selling a domain name at a higher price based on a generic term can constitute a legitimate interest when it is done, as here, not to trade off the trademark rights associated with the trademark of another.

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii) has not been established by Complainant.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Given that the Panel finds that Complainant has failed to establish Respondent's lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, it shall not address the remaining element of the Policy.

 

Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

Paragraph 15(e) of the Rules provides that, if after considering the submissions, the Panel finds that the Complaint was brought in bad faith, for example in an attempt at reverse domain name hijacking or to harass the domain name holder, the Panel shall declare in its decision that the Complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding. The mere lack of success of the complaint is not, on its own, sufficient to constitute reverse domain name hijacking. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions ("WIPO Overview 3.1"), section 4.16.

 

The Panel concludes that the Complaint was brought in bad faith, although it does not find that it was necessarily brought to harass Respondent. However, because Complainant's own cited evidence identifies a party – namely, Sean Fletcher -- other than Respondent as responsible for the creation of the website content, and because Complainant omitted from its own Annex E-2 the explicit language crediting Sean Fletcher with the website's design, the Panel finds that the Complaint was filed without a good-faith basis either intentionally or merely carelessly.  See, e.g., Distributed Creation, Inc. v. Amelie Clement, FA 2203747 (Forum Mar. 9, 2026) (reverse domain name hijacking may be found "where a complainant . . . has filed without conducting reasonable due diligence") (citing WIPO Overview 3.1, section 4.16).  Therefore, the request for a finding of reverse domain name hijacking is granted.

 

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 <theswamp.com> disputed domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.

 

 

Lynda M. Braun, Panelist

Dated: August 2, 2026