Zillow, Inc. v. LaShawn Young
Claim Number: FA2202001985733
Complainant is Zillow, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Matt Schneller of Schneller IP, PLLC, Tennessee, USA. Respondent is LaShawn Young (“Respondent”), Michigan, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <zillowtv.com>, <zillowbank.com>, <zillowcredit.com>, <zillowcoin.com>, <zillowcard.com> and <zillowsure.com>, all of which are registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially, and, to the best of his knowledge, has no conflict of interests in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Terry F. Peppard as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on February 24, 2022; the Forum received payment on February 24, 2022.
On February 24, 2022, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail message addressed to the Forum that each of the domain names <zillowbank.com>, <zillowcredit.com>, <zillowcoin.com>, <zillowcard.com>, <zillowtv.com> and <zillowsure.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. 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 February 25, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 17, 2022, by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail message addressed to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to the attention of the following: postmaster@zillowbank.com, postmaster@zillowcredit.com, postmaster@zillowcoin.com, postmaster@zillowcard.com, as well as to postmaster@zillowtv.com and postmaster@zillowsure.com. Also on February 25, 2022, 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.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on March 4, 2022.
On March 14, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Terry F. Peppard as sole Panelist in this proceeding.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the 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.
Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant and its predecessors have provided real estate related services since 2006 and mortgage marketplace services since 2008 via its website at Zillow.com and via related mobile applications.
Complainant holds a registration for the ZILLOW service mark, which is on file with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) as Registry No. 3,437,691 registered as of May 27, 2008, and renewed as of February 7, 2018.
Respondent registered all of the domain names <zillowcredit.com>, <zillowtv.com>, <zillowbank.com>, <zillowcoin.com>, <zillowcard.com> and <zillowsure.com> between June 15, 2016, and January 20, 2022.
The domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s ZILLOW mark.
Respondent has not been commonly known by any of the domain names.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use the ZILLOW mark.
Respondent offers the domain names for sale.
Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in any of the domain names.
Respondent registered the domain names with knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the ZILLOW mark.
Respondent both registered and now uses the domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent obtained the domain names legitimately.
Respondent has repeatedly communicated with Complainant in an effort “to facilitate a transfer of the [domain] names to [Complainant].”
DISCUSSION
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that, in the ordinary course, Complainant must prove each of the following to obtain from a Panel an order that a domain name be transferred:
i. the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights;
ii. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
iii. the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, 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.”
DECISION
It appears from the record that Respondent does not contest the material allegations of the Complaint. It further appears that Respondent does not object to Complainant’s request for the transfer to it of the subject domain names as prayed for in the Complaint, so that the parties have tacitly agreed to the transfer of the subject domain names from Respondent to Complainant without the need for further proceedings. In the exceptional circumstances here presented, we conclude that no worthwhile purpose would be served by a rendition of findings otherwise customary in proceedings of this sort. See, for example, The Cartoon Network LP, LLLP v. Mike Morgan, D2005-1132, (WIPO January 5, 2006):
A genuine unilateral consent to transfer by the Respondent provides a basis for an immediate order for transfer without consideration of the paragraph 4(a) elements. Where the Complainant has sought transfer of a disputed domain name, and the Respondent consents to transfer, then pursuant to paragraph 10 of the Rules the Panel can proceed immediately to make an order for transfer. This is clearly the most expeditious course (see Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. EZ-Port, WIPO Case No. D2000-0207).
Accordingly, it is Ordered that each of the domain names <zillowbank.com>, <zillowtv.com>, <zillowcredit.com>, <zillowcoin.com>, <zillowcard.com> and <zillowsure.com> be TRANSFERRED forthwith from Respondent to Complainant.
Terry F. Peppard, Panelist
Dated: March 18, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page