DECISION

 

MFTB Holdco, Inc. dba Zillow v. Venturr Digital

Claim Number: FA2310002066847

 

PARTIES

Complainant is MFTB Holdco, Inc. dba Zillow ("Complainant"), represented by Griffin Barnett of Perkins Coie LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Venturr Digital ("Respondent"), United Arab Emirates.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME 

The domain name at issue is <zillowcapital.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, 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.

 

Richard Hill as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

 

On October 19, 2023, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <zillowcapital.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. 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 October 23, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 13, 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@zillowcapital.com. Also on October 23, 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 November 14, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill 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 states that it offers consumers information and services associated with selling, buying, renting, and financing real estate. Complainant asserts rights in the ZILLOW mark through its registration in the United States in 2006.

 

Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its ZILLOW mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety and merely adds the generic/descriptive term "capital" along with the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD").

 

According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use its ZILLOW mark in any way. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the resolving website purports to offer services related to Complainant's business. However, the purported services are not legitimate. On the contrary, the resolving website is used to engage in a financial fraud scheme. More specifically, Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in connection with a website promoting ostensible business loan services; however, on information and belief, this website is merely a sham and part of a broader network of fraudulent websites through which Respondent is attempting to lure and defraud customers seeking business loans. All of these sites use different business names and different fake contact information (including phone numbers and physical addresses), but share the same terms and conditions and other similarities that suggest they are all controlled by the same underlying party (Respondent). One prior such site that has since been disabled was the subject of a "Ripoff Report" concerning use of the site in connection with spam email and other indicia of fraud.

 

Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent purports to offers services which compete with those of Complainant. Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the ZILLOW mark. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant owns the mark ZILLOW and uses it to market a variety of real estate services, including loans.

 

Complainant's rights in its mark date back to 2006.

 

The disputed domain name was registered in 2023.

 

Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.

 

The resolving website purports to offer competing services.

 

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

The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's ZILLOW mark in its entirety, and merely adds the generic/descriptive term "capital" and the ".com" gTLD. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), adding a gTLD and/or generic terms is generally insufficient in differentiating a disputed domain name from the mark it incorporates. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognisable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element."); see also Vanguard Group Inc. v. Proven Fin. Solutions, FA 572937 (Forum Nov. 18, 2005) (holding that the addition of both the word "advisors" and the gTLD ".com" did not sufficiently alter the disputed domain name to negate a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), relevant WHOIS information may demonstrate that a Respondent is not commonly known by a disputed domain name. See PragmaticPlay Limited v. Robert Chris, FA 1932464 (Forum Mar. 23, 2021) ("The WHOIS information of record lists the registrant as "Robert Chris," and no other information of record suggests Respondent is commonly known by the domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)."). Here, the WHOIS information of record identifies the registrant as "Venturr Digital". Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent has registered several domain names to create similar websites, at least one of which has been found to have been used in furtherance of fraud. The Panel finds that the fact that web sites are nearly identical is not sufficient to prove that the underlying domain names were registered by Respondent. Thus the Panel finds that Complainant has failed to satisfy its burden of proof for this allegation and will not further discuss it.

 

The resolving website purports to offer services that compete with those of Complainant. This is not a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Invesco Ltd. v. Premanshu Rana, FA 1733167 (Forum July 10, 2017) ("Use of a domain name to divert Internet users to a competing website is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use."). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name for to make a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant's contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant's mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent's failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name.

 

Indeed, as already noted, the resolving website purports to offer competing services. Under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), using a disputed domain name to offer goods or services in competition with a complainant is evidence of bad faith registration and use. See CAN Financial Corporation v. William Thomson / CNA Insurance, FA 1541484 (Forum Feb. 28, 2014) (finding that the respondent had engaged in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), by using a confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to its own website where it sold competing insurance services). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under 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 <zillowcapital.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Richard Hill, Panelist

Dated: November 14, 2023