I can see the distinct difference between the AOLsucks[dot]com and this case, given that the respondent simply regged the golfer's name without the descriptive verb at the end. This suggests to me that personal names carry less weight than corporation names. Had this been a corporation's exact TM, this case may have had a different outcome (which was suggested when the panel seemed relieved at not having to deal with the "difficulty" of the Cliff Notes case).
In the case of the golfer, despite the fact that the respondent had regged the exact name, the panel rejected the "bad faith" argument, given that the page contained no ads and that no attempt to monetize was made.
On the other hand, I suspect OP did not reg this domain to invoke his/her free speech/first amendment rights.