Group relied on usage prior to domain owner’s acquisition of the domain.
A Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) panel has concluded that The University Athletic Association, Inc., the nonprofit entity that manages the University of Florida’s athletic interests, engaged in reverse domain name hijacking in its attempt to recover the domain name TheSwamp.com.
The Athletic Association, acting on behalf of the university’s athletic department and brand, brought a cybersquatting complaint claiming that the domain infringed on the university’s well-known nickname for its football stadium, “The Swamp.” The domain in question was acquired in 2016 by Michael LeValley for $3,500. LeValley is also the holder of a trademark for clothing sold under the Swamp Yankee brand, and he later listed the domain for sale at $150,000.
Central to the panel’s decision was evidence showing prior use of the domain before LeValley’s acquisition. The complainant relied on archived pages from roughly 1999 to 2002 that show the domain operated as a fan site dedicated to the university’s athletics. Those archived pages included a designer credit acknowledging a site creator named Sean Fletcher, identified by name and graduation year.
Panelist Lynda Braun found that the available evidence supported the domain owner’s rights or legitimate interests in TheSwamp.com. In her written findings, Braun emphasized that the complainant’s own exhibits identified Sean Fletcher as responsible for creating the earlier website content. The complainant omitted the explicit designer credit from one of its annexes, and the panel concluded that the omission undermined the good-faith basis for filing the complaint. For these reasons, the panel found that the complaint constituted reverse domain name hijacking—meaning the complainant had attempted to obtain the domain through UDRP proceedings without a sound legal or factual foundation.
The decision illustrates several important points about UDRP disputes and trademark claims directed against domain names. First, historical use of a domain—even if by different individuals or groups prior to a trademark holder’s involvement—can demonstrate the domain owner’s legitimate interest. Second, documentation submitted to a panel must accurately reflect the full record. Omitting or downplaying material evidence that points to third-party creation or prior legitimate use can significantly weaken a complainant’s case and may expose the complainant to a finding of improper conduct.
In this matter, the domain owner presented evidence of his trademark and his acquisition of the domain, while the complainant relied in part on archived pages predating the purchase. Because those archives pointed to another party as the original site creator, the panel determined the complaint lacked a good-faith basis and therefore awarded the reverse domain name hijacking finding against the Athletic Association.
The proceeding was contested by legal counsel on both sides. The Athletic Association was represented by Malloy & Malloy, P.L., while the respondent, the domain owner, was represented by the firm Hinckley Allen & Snyder LLP. The panel’s decision highlights the risks that trademark owners and their representatives face when pursuing domain disputes: if the factual record does not support a claim of bad-faith registration and use by the respondent, the filing party may be found to have abused the UDRP system.
Beyond the immediate outcome for TheSwamp.com, this decision serves as a reminder for organizations asserting rights in domain names associated with widely used nicknames or descriptive terms. Nicknames and broad phrases that are used generically or by fan communities can have a complicated history of online use. When filing a UDRP complaint, trademark owners should carefully review the historical record, preserve and present all relevant evidence, and disclose any material information that could affect the panel’s assessment of who originally registered or used the domain. Failure to do so risks not just losing the dispute, but also being labeled as having attempted reverse domain name hijacking.