Apparently yes. Read a National Arbitration Forum decision, and you'll see that the panel deemed that "Florida Tourism" does not create an inherently distinctive mark, and has not acquired secondary meaning.
Paragraph 4(a)(1) of the UDRP requires that complainant must prove that the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which he has rights. OK, but what kind of rights? If the complainant uses it everyday, and is known under it, doesn't have, even they are weak, rights?