DECISION

 

MFTB Holdco, Inc. v. Wesley Filipy

Claim Number: FA2512002192252

 

PARTIES

Complainant is MFTB Holdco, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by William Schultz of Merchant & Gould, Minnesota, USA. Respondent is Wesley Filipy ("Respondent"), Brazil.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <zillow.space>, registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on December 2, 2025. Forum received payment on December 2, 2025.

 

On December 3, 2025, HOSTINGER operations, UAB confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <zillow.space> domain name is registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. HOSTINGER operations, UAB has verified that Respondent is bound by the HOSTINGER operations, UAB 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 December 3, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 23, 2025 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@zillow.space. Also on December 3, 2025, 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 December 26, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury 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 d/b/a Zillow, is a leading provider of real estate and home-related information, products and services in the United States. Complainant has used its ZILLOW mark in commerce continuously in connection with a variety of communications products and services since at least as early as 2006. Its website, located at "www.zillow.com", is among the most visited real estate websites in the United States.

 

Respondent's <zillow.space> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's ZILLOW mark.

 

Respondent does not have any right or legitimate interest in the <zillow.space> domain name. Respondent has not received permission to use the ZILLOW mark. Before any notice to Respondent of this dispute, Respondent used the domain name to direct to a website that offers the same type of services as Complainant and gives the false impression that the site is affiliated with, endorsed by, or connected to Complainant. This is not a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. There is no evidence Respondent is commonly known by the name ZILLOW or the domain name.

 

Respondent registered and is using the <zillow.space> domain name in bad faith. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's trademark rights in its ZILLOW mark prior to the registration of the domain name. Unlike the registration of a common name that may have more than one meaning, the ZILLOW mark is a coined term that relates only to Complainant. Respondent's goal in registering the domain name was to trick consumers into believing that it was Complainant. Indeed, Respondent populated its website listings for real estate to give the false impression that the site was connected to Complainant. Throughout the process, Respondent competed against Complainant for customer traffic. Respondent's offers related to houses and land also provided the false impression that Complainant authorized the use of the mark, or that Complainant was providing the services.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has established all the elements entitling it to relief.

 

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 has shown that it has rights inter alia in the mark ZILLOW, including USPTO Registration No. 3,150,074, registered on September 26, 2006 for non-downloadable computer database software featuring information in the field of real estate, in International Class 42.

 

It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the complainant's trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0, ¶ 1.7.

 

The Panel finds Respondent's <zillow.space>  domain name to be identical to Complainant's ZILLOW mark, since the inconsequential ".space" generic top-level domain ("gTLD") may be ignored under this element. See, for example, Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000).

 

Complainant has established this element.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate Respondent's rights or legitimate interests to the domain name for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(ii):

 

(i)                      before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

 

(ii)                      Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

 

(iii)        Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

 

The <zillow.space>  domain name was registered on July 23, 2025, several years after the registration of Complainant's ZILLOW mark. It resolves to a website under the name EasyAds, stating: "Find Real Estate and Vehicles Quickly and Easily Post or find houses, land, cars, or businesses in one platform".

 

These circumstances, together with Complainant's assertions, are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the <zillow.space>  domain name. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Dryx Emerson / KMF Events LTD, FA 1849706 (Forum July 17, 2019). Respondent has made no attempt to do so.

 

The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.

 

Complainant has established this element.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is expressed in the conjunctive: "the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith" and Paragraph 4(b) sets out four illustrative circumstances, which, though not exclusive, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii), including:

 

(iii)        you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

 

(iv)                      by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.

The circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent was fully aware of Complainant and its ZILLOW mark when Respondent registered the <zillow.space> domain name and did so primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor. Further, that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent's website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's website and of the services promoted on that website. This demonstrates registration and use in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv).

 

Complainant has established this element.

 

DECISION

Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <zillow.space> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Alan L. Limbury, Panelist

Dated: December 29, 2025