DECISION

 

MFTB Holdco, Inc. dba Zillow v. Destiny Alms

Claim Number: FA2309002062105

PARTIES

Complainant is MFTB Holdco, Inc. dba Zillow ("Complainant"), represented by Vicki Nee of Perkins Coie LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Destiny Alms ("Respondent"), Illinois, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <zillowcareers.com>, registered with Google LLC.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Jeffrey J. Neuman, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on September 18, 2023; Forum received payment on September 18, 2023.

 

On September 18, 2023, Google LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <zillowcareers.com> domain name is registered with Google LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Google LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Google 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 September 20, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 10, 2023, 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@zillowcareers.com. Also on September 20, 2023, 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 October 11, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Jeffrey J. Neuman 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 domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant, MFTB Holdco, Inc. dba Zillow has been operating real estate marketplace services since 2006. Complainant offers consumers information and services associated with selling, buying, renting, and financing real estate under the ZILLOW brand. Complainant has multiple trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"), including Registration No. 3175031, registered on November 21, 2006, in connection with real estate services. Complainant is a publicly traded company and is the most visited real estate website in the United States.

 

The Disputed Domain Name, <zillowcareers.com> is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's ZILLOW mark and merely adds the descriptive term "careers" and the ".com" generic top-level domain.  Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name and is not licensed or otherwise authorized to use Complainant's ZILLOW mark or any other trademarks owned by Complainant.

 

Respondent is not using the Disputed Domain in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The Disputed Domain Name resolved to an inactive website. Respondent instead used the Disputed domain Name to create a series of email addresses, including hr@zillowcareers.com and rachel@zillow careers.com, in order to impersonate HR representatives of Complainant's career department and offer fake jobs to unsuspecting victims. In doing so, Respondent has gained access to victim's personally identifiable information which it can use to exploit those victims. Attached to the Complaint are copies of several e-mails showing the Respondent's fraudulent scheme. Those e-mails contain Complainant's ZILLOW mark and real address to lure job applicants into sending Respondent personally identifiable information which would normally be included in standard job applications. In the correspondence provided by the Complainant, the Respondent's victim fortunately suspected that they were being scammed and reported the incident to Complainant.

 

The above not only demonstrates that the Disputed Domain Name is not being used in connection with a bona fide service, but also established that the Respondent both registered and used the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. The Respondent clearly had actual knowledge of the Complainant and its well-known mark when it registered the domain name and then used that Disputed Domain Name in connection with a fraudulent scheme to impersonate the Complainant.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.  The Panel notes that the Disputed Domain Name, <zillowcareers.com> was registered on August 24, 2023, by Respondent.

 

FINDINGS

1.       The Disputed Domain Name registered by Respondent, <zillowcareers.com> is confusing similar to the Complainant's ZILLOW mark.

 

2.  Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name; and

 

3.  The Disputed Domain Name is being used in connection with a fraudulent scheme to impersonate the Complainant in an attempt most likely to steal personally identifiable information. As such, the Disputed Domain Names was clearly registered, and is currently being used, by Respondent in bad faith.

 

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 3.0 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 claims rights in the ZILLOW mark through its numerous registrations with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 3,175,031, registered November 21, 2006). See Compl. p.3 and Ex. E.  It also contends that the Disputed Domain Name <zillowcareers.com> is confusingly similar to the Mark.  

 

Registration with the USPTO is generally sufficient in demonstrating rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) ("Complainant's ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."). This first element under the UDRP is essentially a standing requirement to determine whether the Complainant has jurisdiction to bring a UDRP action against the Respondent.  In accordance with the above, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Complainant argues the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's ZILLOW mark as it contains the entirety of Complainant's mark and merely adds the additional descriptive term "careers" in addition to the ".com" gTLD.  The addition of a descriptive term and a generic top-level domain fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See The Toronto-Dominion Bank v. George Whitehead, FA 1784412 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("[S]light differences between domain names and registered marks, such as the addition of words that describe the goods or services in connection with the mark and gTLDs, do not distinguish the domain name from the mark incorporated therein per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."). There are a long line of UDRP cases that have found that the addition of the term "careers" to a complainant's mark are confusingly similar to the complainant's mark. A few examples include New York Life Insurance Company v. Manlidy / GNN, FA 2041169 (Forum May 24,2023)(<NYLifeCareers.com>); Leidos, Inc. v. david mayor, FA 2042229 (Forum May 24, 2023)(<leidoscareers.com>); and Spotify AB v. Olodo Glory / Sutherland FA 1951577 (Forum July 15, 2021)(<spotifycareers.com>)

 

Therefore, the Panel finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).

 

The Complainant has met its burden in demonstrating a prima facie case showing that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in and to the Disputed Domain Name. The WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name identifies the registrant of <zillowcareers.com> as "Destiny Alms" and the record before the Panel contains no evidence that otherwise tends to show that Respondent is commonly known by the <zillowcareers.com> domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).

 

In addition, there is no evidence in the record that supports any conclusion other than the fact that the Respondent was not authorized to use Complainant's mark.

 

Finally, given the lack of a response by the Respondent, there is no evidence in the record that the Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Complainant has submitted credible evidence establishing that the Respondent has been using the Disputed Domain Name to impersonate Complainant's human resources department in an attempt to lure unsuspecting victims into providing personal information to the Respondent. Evidence submitted by the Complainant demonstrates that the Respondent created a series of e-mail addresses, including hr@zillowcareers.com and rachel@zillow careers.com. Using those e-mail addresses, Respondent e-mailed victims representing themselves as being "members of the Complainant's Recruitment Team" to offer them employment with Complainant (using Complainant's logo and physical address). Complainant also provided evidence of a post appearing on the online forum Reddit entitled "Am I just overthinking like crazy or is this a scam?" (which has since been deleted). The poster claimed to have been offered a $120,000 position with the Complainant, but was asked to first purchase equipment from a vendor and send that equipment to the Company. The Disputed Domain Name is directly named in the comments to the post.

 

Using the at-issue domain name to confuse internet users by disingenuously offering jobs related to Complainant's business is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See iFinex Inc. v. Yuri Hefetz / Genie-Solution, FA 1789385 (Forum July 9, 2018) (holding that the respondent's mimicking the complainant's website in order to cause existing or potential customers to falsely believe they are setting up a new account with the complainant is prima facie evidence of the respondent's lack of rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name); see also Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("Passing off as a complainant through e-mails is evidence that a respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii).").

 

Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden and conclusively demonstrates Respondent's lack of rights and lack of interests in respect of the at-issue domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

There is no question here that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

First, the Respondent clearly had actual knowledge of the Complainant's rights in the well-known ZILLOW mark. It is well established that the use of a confusingly similar domain name for the purpose of phishing, business e-mail compromise attacks, or in any other way to impersonate a Complainant unquestionably creates an inference that the Respondent must have known about the Complainant's rights in a mark at the time it registered the Disputed Domain Name. This is especially the case where a Respondent, like the one here, used the Disputed Domain Name as early as one week after it registered the Disputed Domain Name to impersonate the Complainant. Here the evidence provided by the Complainant includes a letter dated August 31, 2023, which was e-mailed to a victim via an e-mail using the Disputed Domain Name. This was seven (7) days after it registered the Disputed Domain Name. 

 

In addition, it is well established that the registration of a confusingly similar domain name with the intent to disrupt business by passing off as a complainant using fraudulent emails is evidence of bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).  See Microsoft Corporation v. Terrence Green / Whois Agent / Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc., FA 1661030 (Forum Apr. 4, 2016) (finding the Respondent's use of the disputed domain names to send fraudulent emails supported a finding of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii));  see also  Abbvie, Inc. v. James Bulow, FA 1701075 (Forum Nov. 30, 2016) ("Respondent uses the <abbuie.com> domain name to impersonate Complainant's CEO. Such use is undeniably disruptive to Complainant's business and demonstrates bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iii), and/or Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)").

 

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 <zillowcareers.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. 

 

 

 

 

Jeffrey J. Neuman, Panelist

Dated: October 23, 2023