Dukegolfcamps.com

The timeline behind dukegolfcamps.com

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

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

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Duke University v. Myles, Marie and Associates Myles, Marie and Associates Claim Number: FA2605002219082 PARTIES Complainant is Duke University ("Complainant"), represented by William B. Cannon of Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP, North Carolina, USA. Respondent is Myles, Marie and Associates Myles, Marie and Associates ("Respondent"), Texas, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <dukegolfcamps.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, 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. James Bridgeman SC as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on May 1, 2026; Forum received payment on May 1, 2026. On May 4, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <dukegolfcamps.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. 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 May 7, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 27, 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@dukegolfcamps.com. Also on May 7, 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. Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On May 28, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed James Bridgeman SC 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. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant claims rights in the DUKE mark established by its ownership of the portfolio of trademark and service mark registrations described below and extensive use of the mark providing educational services in relevantly sports camps and training, citing CarMax Business Services, LLC v. Jim Allred, FA 1156006 (Forum Apr. 17, 2008) ("The Panel finds Complainant's registration of its CARMAX mark with the USPTO adequately establishes Complainant's rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."). Complainant submits that it is a nationally renowned university located in Durham, North Carolina, founded in 1838 and formally named Duke University in 1924. It has continuously used the DUKE mark since that time in connection with educational, athletic, and related services. Referring to screen captures of its website at <www.duke.edu> Complainant submits that it uses the DUKE mark to identify its Division I athletics programs, including its men's and women's golf programs. Complaint adds that golf coaches affiliated with the university offer summer golf camps for junior golfers, and Complainant has promoted "Duke Golf Camps," "Duke Golf Camp," and "Duke Academy of Golf" on its official athletics website, as illustrated in screen captures exhibited in an annex to the Complaint. Complainant adds that it has promoted summer golf camps under the DUKE name since at least 2008, predating Respondent's 2013 registration of the disputed domain name. Firstly, Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name <dukegolfcamps.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant's registered trademark and service mark DUKE because the disputed domain name incorporates DUKE in its entirety. Complainant submits that the added terms "golf" and "camps" are descriptive and directly relate to services actually offered by Complainant, citing The Board of Regents of The University of Texas System v. michael vick, FA 2184159 (Forum Nov. 15, 2025) (finding the addition of the phrase COLLEGE JERSEY to the word TEXAS provided no distinguishing value). Additionally, it is argued that the generic Top Level Domain ("gTLD") is irrelevant for comparison. Secondly Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, arguing that · Respondent is not authorized by Complainant to use the DUKE mark; · Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant; · Respondent is not commonly known by the name "Duke Golf Camps", citing Transamerica Corp. v. Host Master / Transure Enterprise Ltd, FA 1841115 (Forum May 28, 2019) ("[T]he pertinent WHOIS information identifies the registrant of the domain name only as 'Host Master / Transure Enterprise Ltd,' which does not resemble the domain name"); · as shown in the screen captures exhibited in an annex to the Complaint, Respondent uses the disputed domain name for a misleading commercial redirect of Internet traffic to a competing junior golf camp‑registration business; · as shown in the screen captures exhibited in an annex to the Complaint, the website to which the disputed domain name resolves displays Complainant's DUKE mark in its branding and makes reference to sports coaches with known association with the university, misleadingly implying an affiliation with Complainant; · Respondents use of the disputed domain name does not qualify as bona fide, noncommercial, or fair. Thirdly, Complainant submits that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, arguing that Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name <dukegolfcamps.com> deprives Complainant of the natural domain name for its own golf camps. Complainant has used the DUKE mark since 1924; its registered trademark rights in DUKE were granted in February 15, 2000, and Complainant adds that it has promoted summer golf camps under the DUKE name since at least 2008, which long predate the of the confusingly similar disputed domain name in February 2013. Complainant adds that the disputed domain name corresponds to Complainant's own golf camp offerings, and redirects Internet users to a commercial websites selling junior golf camps, and that it is more than a coincidence that Respondent incorporated the DUKE mark into the disputed domain name. Complainant argues that Respondent's website reinforces a false affiliation with Complainant by displaying DUKE branding and the names of coach‑name references. Specifically, Complainant asserts that the exhibited screen captures show that the website to which the disputed domain name resolves displays Complainant's DUKE trademark and service mark, Complainant's stylized letter "D" logo, Complainant's proprietary Blue Devil imagery, and refers to the name of Complainant's sports coaches, without any disclaimer of affiliation. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant is a university established in North Carolina, offering educational courses, including relevantly summer sports courses and camps, including the Duke Academy of Golf, the Bob Heintz Duke Golf School and the Duke Golf Camp; and owns a portfolio of trademarks and service marks including the following: · United States registered service mark DUKE, registration number 2317603, registered on the Principal Register on February 15, 2000, for services in international classes 41 and 42. · United States registered trademark DUKE, registration number 3936096, registered on the Principal Register on March 29, 2011, for goods in international class 25. · United States registered trademark IRON DUKES, registration number 4108223, registered on the Principal Register on March 6, 2012, for goods in international class 28. Complainant has an established Internet presence with its main website at <www.duke.edu> on which it promotes its educational courses and activities, including golf camps and other sports camps run by its coaches. The disputed domain name was registered on August 31, 2013, and resolves to a website that automatically redirects users to <collegegolfcamps.com>, a commercial junior‑golf camp‑registration business. There is no information available about Respondent except for that provided in the Complaint, as amended, the Registrar's WhoIs and the information provided by the Registrar in response to the request by the Forum for details of the registration of the disputed domain name for the purposes of this proceeding. 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. In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.1 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) ("Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint"). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Complainant has provided convincing, uncontested evidence that it has rights in the DUKE mark established by the ownership of the portfolio of trademark and service mark registrations described above and the reputation and goodwill that it has established in the mark by extensive use of the mark as a university providing educational courses since 1924, and short term sports summer sports camps. The disputed domain name <dukegolfcamps.com> consists of Complainant's DUKE mark in its entirety combination with the descriptive elements "golf" and "camps" and the gTLD extension <.com>. It is well accepted that while each case is judged on its own merits, where as in the present case, a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, the domain name at issue will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of standing in the first element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). In the circumstances of this proceeding, neither the descriptive words "golf" and "camps" nor the gTLD <.com>, prevent a finding of confusing similarity with the DUKE mark. Applying these principles this Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark. This Panel finds therefore that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the DUKE mark in which Complainant has rights, and Complainant has succeeded in the first element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights legitimate interests in the disputed domain name arguing in particular that Respondent is using the disputed domain name within the address of its website, creating an impression among Internet users that the website is in some way associated with Complainant, when it is not. It is well established that once a complainant makes out a prima facie case that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to prove its rights or legitimate interests. Respondent has failed to discharge that burden and therefore this Panel must find that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Complainant has therefore succeeded in the second element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant has shown that in addition to its academic university courses, it has an established reputation using the DUKE mark in providing sports camps and training since prior to the registration of the disputed domain name on August 31, 2013. DUKE is a distinctive mark in the world of education and university sports, as show in the screen captures exhibited in the annexes to the Complaint. Given the reputation of Complainant's university, and its promotion of its sports camps, it is improbable that the registrant of the disputed domain name was unaware of Complainant when the descriptive and confusingly similar disputed domain name was chosen and registered. Complainant has shown that from the time if its registration, Respondent has used the disputed domain name within the address of its website to create an association with Complainant. Complainant has asserted that no such association exists. In this regard, Complainant refers to the exhibited Respondent's webpages · on March 8, 2013 which announced "Duke University – [name of coach redacted] to CGC – San Diego"; · on August 22, 2013 announced a "List of Coaches for CGC – San Diego included a coach associated with Complainant; and · on September 4, 2015 it announced that a named "Duke coach" was to join CGC staff at BIG 5 camp. The Panel finds therefore that on the balance of probabilities the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith with Complainant's mark in mind with the intention of taking predatory advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Complainant and in particular Complainant's sports camps. The uncontested evidence is that Respondent continues to use the disputed domain name to direct Internet traffic to web pages offering sports camps which compete with Complainant. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is being used in bad faith. Specifically, by its use of the disputed domain name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its web site by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's web site or location or of a product or service on Respondent's web site, which is an indication of registration and use in bad faith listed in in Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). As this Panel has found that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, Complainant has succeeded in the third element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). 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 <dukegolfcamps.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. ____________________________________________ James Bridgeman SC, Panelist Dated: May 29, 2025 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

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