A one member UDRP panel rejected the complaint of the The Professional Golfers’ Association of America of Florida on the domain name pgagolfpassport.com which was registered sometime in 1995 or 1997
Complainant is the largest golf association in the United States, and for decades has used in commerce the mark PGA and of course own domain PGA.com
At the time the Complaint was filed, the Domain Name resolved to a website featuring the greeting “Welcome to the Golf Passport.” The “Golf Passport” is described as “the greatest deal in golf today.” The site solicits online memberships for $39.95, and advertises over 320 “participating facilities,” steep discounts on green fees, year-round golfing opportunities, and courses in several states. Based on the website evidence put into the record by the parties, there is no reference to PGA anywhere on the website, and there appears no disclaimer of affiliation between the purveyor of the website and Complainant.
At some point between the initial Complaint and Complainant’s supplemental submission, the Domain Name ceased to resolve to an active website.
The parties in this case have a prior relationship. According to Respondent, his company Diversified Partners Group, LLC (“Diversified”) had a contract with the South Central Section of the PGA (“SCS-PGA”), executed in May 2008, pursuant to which Diversified cooperated with SCS-PGA in “the production, marketing and sales of “2008 GOLF PASSPORT.” Under the contract, Diversified agreed to pay USD 3.00 for each membership sold, with a minimum of $10,000 payable during the 2009, 2010, and 2011 calendar years. Among Diversified’s responsibilities under the contract were the creation of an “on-line purchase opportunity on the PGAGolfPassport.com website” and the creation of an “on-line enrollment opportunity for golf facilities on the PGAGolfPassport.com website.”
Complainant does not dispute the existence or terms of this contract between Diversified and SCS-PGA nor does Complainant assert that Respondent had no rights to register the Domain Name in furtherance of the goals of this contract. Rather, Complainant asserts that the Diversified contract with SCS-PGA expired in May 2011 and “any permission to use [the Domain Name] expired in 2011.”
Robert A. Badgley the sole panelist rejected the Complaint because he found no evidence that Respondent registered the Domain Name in bad faith in 1995 or in 1997.
Furthermore, the Domain Name was expressly referred to in the May 2008 contract between Diversified and SCS-PGA. The non-renewal of the contract in May 2011 does not alter the apparent initial legitimacy of the registration.
Finally in some nice language the panelist found:
“”The Policy is not designed to serve as a clearinghouse for any and all disputes that happen to involve a domain name. Rather, it was set up to deal essentially with clear cases of cybersquatting. In the present dispute, it would appear that Complainant may have a viable cause of action against Respondent in a court of law, but the expedited relief under the Policy is not available because an essential element – bad faith registration of the Domain Name – is wanting.””
