Westmore · UDRP decision
FORUM · Case No. FA0510000573022

Golfhawaii.com

TransferFORUM-indexed · informational, not legal advice

The Panel ordered transfer of <golfhawaii.com>, finding it confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered GOLF HAWAII mark, that Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests, and that Respondent registered and used the domain in bad faith to divert users for commercial gain.

Outcome
Transfer
At a glance
Provider
FORUM
Outcome
Transfer
Decision date
2005-11-28
Panelist(s)
Mark McCormick
Complainant
Rolfing Sports, Inc. d/b/a Golf Hawaii
Respondent
Compana LLC
Counsel
Kay Lyn Schwartz
Law firm
Gardere Wynne Sewell, LLP; Gregory H. Guillot, PC
Disputed domain(s)
golfhawaii.com
Citation weightrelies on 5 authorities
Domain history UDRP Intelligence

The timeline behind golfhawaii.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Westmore reconstructs the full history behind golfhawaii.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:

Registration → decision → today timeline
Archived Wayback evidence of what the site showed
Registry bad-faith signals
The live current registrant
Available in UDRP Intelligence
Verified public record
Outcome & remedy
Complaint granted. Panel ordered transfer of golfhawaii.com.
Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
No RDNH raised.
Westmore Insight

Respondent intentionally used the domain to divert Internet users to its commercial website for gain by using Complainant’s mark. Circumstantial evidence also showed that Respondent knew of Complainant’s rights when registering the domain.

The three-part test
Identical or confusingly similarMet
Rights or legitimate interestsMet
Registered and used in bad faithMet

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

Related decisions
Case details
Provider
FORUM
Outcome
Transfer
Decision date
2005-11-28
Panel
Mark McCormick
Full decision
6 min read · hosted by Westmore

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Rolfing Sports, Inc. d/b/a Golf Hawaii v. Compana LLC Claim Number: FA0510000573022 PARTIES Complainant is Rolfing Sports, Inc. d/b/a Golf Hawaii (“Complainant”), represented by Kay Lyn Schwartz, of Gardere Wynne Sewell, LLP, 1601 Elm Street, Suite 3000, Dallas, TX, 75201. Respondent is Compana LLC (“Respondent”), represented by Gregory H. Guillot, of Gregory H. Guillot, PC, 13455 Noel Road, Suite 1000, Dallas, TX 75240. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <golfhawaii.com>, registered with Compana, LLC. PANEL The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Mark McCormick as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on October 6, 2005; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on October 11, 2005. On October 11, 2005, Compana, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <golfhawaii.com> domain name is registered with Compana, LLC and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Compana, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Compana, LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”). On October 14, 2005, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of November 3, 2005 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@golfhawaii.com by e-mail. A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on November 3, 2005. A Timely Additional Submission from Respondent was received and determined to be complete on November 8, 2005. On November 10, 2005, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Mark McCormick as Panelist. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant asserts that it has established rights in the GOLF HAWAII mark through registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office and has maintained a valid registration of the mark since 2003. Complainant also contends it has used the mark since January 1995. Complainant asserts that Respondent’s <golfhawaii.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s mark, but merely adds the domain “.com.” Complainant contends Respondent has not established rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and has not used the domain name in connection with a legitimate and clear use, but merely uses the domain name to operate a website featuring commercial links to third-party websites in exchange for referral fees. Complainant contends that Respondent has registered the domain name in bad faith to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by taking advantage of Complainant’s mark. B. Respondent Respondent challenges Complainant’s rights in the GOLF HAWAII mark by asserting that the terms are generic and not subject to protection. Respondent contends it has rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because the words are merely generic and descriptive and because Respondent is making a legitimate use of the domain name. Respondent contends Complainant cannot demonstrate bad faith because the domain name is comprised merely of generic terms and because Respondent is making a legitimate use of the domain name. C. Additional Submissions In its additional submission, Respondent provided information that the <golfhawaii.com> domain name was first registered December 23, 1996 by a company which used it for several years but permitted it to expire. Respondent contends this prior use provides an additional example of a valid, good-faith use of the Golf Hawaii term and helps demonstrate that Respondent should similarly be free to use it. FINDINGS Complainant has proved that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the GOLF HAWAII mark, which Complainant has registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Complainant’s mark is not denied protection merely because it is comprised of common words. Complainant has also established its rights and legitimate interests in its mark and has shown that Respondent has not established rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant has also demonstrated that Respondent has registered and used the domain name in bad faith in order to divert Internet users to its website for commercial gain. Circumstantial evidence establishes Respondent’s knowledge of Complainant’s registered mark. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) instructs this Panel to “decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted 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 the 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 the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (2) the 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 Complainant’s registration of its GOLF HAWAII mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office establishes Complainant’s rights in the GOLF HAWAII mark. See Vivendi Universal Games v. XBNetVentures Inc., FA 198803 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2003). Respondent’s <golfhawaii.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because it merely adds the generic top-level domain “.com.” See Fed’n of Gay Games, Inc. v. Hodgson, D2000-0432 (WIPO June 28, 2000). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant has established that Respondent is not commonly known by the <golfhawaii.com> domain name and has not established rights or legitimate interests in the name. See Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000). Respondent effectively acknowledges that it is using the domain name to operate a website featuring commercial links to third-party websites, through which it receives referral fees. This is not a bona fide offering of goods or services. See TM Acquisition Corp. v. Sign Guards, FA 132439 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2002). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant has demonstrated that Respondent uses the domain name to divert Internet users to its commercial website to intentionally attract users for commercial gain by using Complainant’s GOLF HAWAII mark. Circumstantial evidence shows Respondent knew of Complainant’s rights in the mark at the time of its registration of the domain name. Its use of the domain name is in bad faith. See H-D Michigan, Inc. v. Petersons Auto, FA 135608 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 8, 2003). 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 <golfhawaii.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Mark McCormick, Panelist Dated: November 28, 2005 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM

Source of record: FORUM . Reproduced for research; FORUM is the authoritative source.

Beyond the decision

What Westmore sees around golfhawaii.com

The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.

Connected to Westmore UDRP Intelligence
116,099 decisions · citations · panelists · parties · domain history
Eleanor · UDRP intelligence
Ask Eleanor about this decision
Ask Eleanor about this decision

A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.

Unlocking Eleanor for this case uses 1 of your complimentary Intelligence unlocks· 3 remaining

Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.

Westmore Professional · Unlock the intelligence

The decision is only the beginning.

You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.

Citation Intelligence
How this decision is cited and treated across the corpus.
Panelist Intelligence
The panel's tendencies, outcomes and reasoning patterns.
Domain History
Ownership chronology — creation vs. respondent acquisition.
Opposing-Party Research
Complainant, counsel and portfolio context.
Independent Case Review
Eleanor challenges your filing before the other side does.
Professional Matters
Open, research and manage matters end to end.
$395/month
Unlock Westmore Professional Annual & firm seats available · cancel anytime
Take the next step
Westmore UDRP · find the right service

Westmore UDRP records draw on FORUM-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.

Confidential buyer-side representation for premium-domain acquisitions, backed by WHOIS, UDRP and domain-sales intelligence.

or
Buyer-side only Escrow-protected NDA on request
Services
Research
UDRP
Widgets
Westmore
Support
Know everything about a domain
Owner, history, status and risk in one search

Copyright © 2026 Westmore. All rights reserved.

Start a confidential acquisition →

Essential cookies only. Nothing is sold or shared.