DECISION

 

MFTB Holdco, Inc. v. Michael Gansallo / Crestpholding

Claim Number: FA2608002238503

 

PARTIES

Complainant is MFTB Holdco, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by William Schultz of Merchant & Gould, Minnesota, USA. Respondent is Michael Gansallo / Crestpholding ("Respondent"), Delaware, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <zillowhome.online>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.

 

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.

 

Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 10, 2026; Forum received payment on August 10, 2026.

 

On August 11, 2026, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <zillowhome.online> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. 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 August 13, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 2, 2026 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@zillowhome.online. Also on August 13, 2026, 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 September 3, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 contends in part as follows:

 

Complainant MFTB Holdco, Inc d/b/a Zillow is the owner of the ZILLOW family of trademarks used in connection with a variety of communications products and services. Complainant has used the ZILLOW mark in commerce continuously since at least as early as 2006. Additionally, Complainant is the owner of numerous registrations and applications for the mark ZILLOW in the United States. Complainant has also used its ZILLOW mark in connection with a wide range of products and services. The ZILLOW mark has become famous and is widely recognized by consumers as identifying Zillow's high-quality real estate services.

 

Respondent has no statutory or common law trademark rights or any other right or legitimate interest to Complainant's ZILLOW marks, or in the at-issue domain name. Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use the ZILLOW marks or any derivative mark for any purpose.

 

The Domain Name is Confusingly Similar to the ZILLOW marks. The addition of a top-level domain to a mark is not a distinguishing feature. Further, adding the term "home" in the at-issue domain name does not serve to distinguish the domain name from the ZILLOW marks.

 

The Respondent Does Not Have Any Right or Legitimate Interest in the Domain Name. The registration of a domain name to pass off as a mark holder is not a bona fide offering of goods pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i). Moreover, Respondent has no legitimate right to the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) in that it has not received permission to use the ZILLOW marks. Furthermore, before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, Respondent did not use the mark for legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) because Respondent used the domain name to direct to a website that uses Complainant's trademark as a source identifier. The website gives the false impression that the site is affiliated with, endorsed by, or connected to Complainant. Respondent lacks legitimate rights because it is attempting to pass itself off as Complainant. Respondent's use of a domain name to trick consumers into believing that the <zillowhome.online> website is associated with Complainant by using copyrighted content on that site is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). Respondent's use of a domain name for the purpose of passing itself off as the complainant does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Respondent does not have a bona fide interest or legitimate or fair use in the at-issue domain name pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and 4(c)(iii) in that its intent in registering the domain name was to use the domain name to pass itself off as Complainant or authorized by Complainant. Respondent used the domain name to divert traffic away from Complainant. Unsuspecting consumers attempting to visit Complainant's web presence for its products or services may inadvertently visit Respondent's site because the domain name includes the ZILLOW marks. Upon reaching the website, Respondent uses the ZILLOW trademarks in connection with Respondent's <zillowhome.online> website, again without authorization. Such use gives consumers the false impression that Complainant is related or has authorized the website because its name is so prominently used.  Respondent commercially benefits from the confusion by increasing the traffic to the site, thus making it more popular for search engine optimization purposes. Such activity is not a bona fide use of the domain name and is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Respondent also has no legitimate rights pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) in that it is not commonly known by the mark and has not received Complainant's permission to use the ZILLOW marks. Complainant has not licensed its ZILLOW marks to Respondent.

 

The Domain Name Has Been Registered and Used in Bad Faith. Respondent registered the domain name in bad faith knowing of Complainant's trademark rights in the ZILLOW marks. Respondent's registration of the domain name was in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) because at the time the name was registered, Respondent knew of Complainant's rights and engaged in a pattern of conduct to prevent Complainant from using the at-issue domain name. Further, Respondent engaged in a pattern of conduct when it populated the website associated with the domain name with content related to Complainant, including the use of the ZILLOW mark, including a logo that appears with the stylized house and the ZILLOW trademark. The evidence shows the Respondent had actual notice of Complainant's trademark rights in and to the ZILLOW marks at the time the domain name was registered (it copied Zillow's marks, including the ® symbol). On that basis alone, Respondent's registration of a confusingly similar domain name shows bad faith. Respondent acted in bad faith when it created a website to attract Complainant's customers, thereby confusing those customers. Respondent has also acted in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) because it disrupted Zillow's business. Further, Respondent's intentional attempt to attract Internet users into its scheme by using a name that is confusingly similar to Complainant's ZILLOW marks is also in violation of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). A respondent's use of a domain name to pass itself off as being the complainant constitutes bad faith. Respondent's goal in registering the domain name was to trick consumers into believing that it was Complainant or was related to Complainant. Indeed, Respondent populated its website with content related to Complainant's offerings, to give the false impression that the site was connected to Complainant. Throughout the process, Respondent competed against Complainant for the customer traffic. Respondent's offer to sell and/or rent homes using the ZILLOW trademarks and logo provided the false impression that Respondent was authorized by Complainant. It was not. These facts also demonstrate Respondent's actual knowledge of Complainant's rights. Respondent acted in bad faith when it diverted customers from Complainant. Respondent's diversion of traffic from Complainant's own website also shows bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). Respondent's use of the domain name is to divert traffic away from Complainant's own website to Respondent's website. Respondent and Complainant compete for the same consumers who are searching for products / services under the ZILLOW marks. By registering a domain name that contains the ZILLOW trademark, Respondent directly competes against Complainant for that traffic, particularly the traffic that is looking for homes or real estate services. Bad faith is shown because Respondent registered domain name to trade on Complainant's goodwill associated with its ZILLOW marks. Respondent used Complainant's business name and a logo similar to Complainant's logo on its website. Respondent used Complainant's content. It had no permission to do so. Respondent is using the domain name to sell and rent homes to unsuspecting visitors who believe they are dealing with Complainant or a Complainant-authorized service. Further, Respondent, as long as it maintains the domain name, has the ability to control the emails associated with the domain name and the DNS settings – meaning at any time Respondent can send out phishing emails or redirect consumers to other websites. Neither Complainant nor its customers should bear that risk. Such action is additional evidence of bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has trademark rights in the ZILLOW mark.

 

Complainant's rights in ZILLOW predate Respondent's registration of <zillowhome.online>.

 

Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant nor authorized to use Complainant's trademarks in any capacity.

 

Respondent used the at-issue domain name to address a website impersonating Complainant and purporting to offer services related or identical to services offered by Complainant.

 

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 3.1 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 at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Any of Complainant's multiple USPTO registrations for ZILLOW is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant's rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Target Brands, Inc. v. jennifer beyer, FA 1738027 (Forum July 31, 2017) ("Complainant has rights in its TARGET service mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) by virtue of its registration of the mark with a national trademark authority, the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO").")

 

Respondent's <zillowhome.online> domain name consists of Complainant's ZILLOW trademark followed by the suggestive term "home" with all followed by the ".online" top-level. The differences between Complainant's trademark and the at-issue domain name fail to distinguish Respondent's domain name from Complainant's ZILLOW trademark. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent's <zillowhome.online> domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights under Policy ¶4 (a)(i). See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognizable 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, Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Domain Administrator / Registry Services, LLC, FA 2038314 (Forum July 26, 2023)("The addition of a gTLD fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a 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).

 

Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity and as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name. See Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA 1620789 (Forum June 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the at-issue domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark into any domain name).

 

The WHOIS information for <zillowhome.online> leads to identifying the domain name's registrant as " Michael Gansallo / Crestpholding" and the record contains no evidence that otherwise tends to prove that Respondent is commonly known by <zillowhome.online>. 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).

 

Respondent used the at-issue domain name to address a website appearing as if it were sponsored by Complainant. The website purports to offer services like those services offered by Complainant. Respondent's <zillowhome.online> domain name and website thus facilitate Respondent's passing off as Complainant or authorized by Complainant and cause internet users to falsely believe that Respondent's domain name and its referenced website are sponsored by Complainant. Respondent's <zillowhome.online> website displays Complainant's ZILLOW trademark, logo. and other indicia which cause confusion as to the source of the website and its proffered services. Respondent's use of the <zillowhome.online> domain name in this manner constitutes neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Insomniac Holdings, LLC v. Mark Daniels, FA 1735969 (Forum July 15, 2017) (refusing to find rights and legitimate interests in a domain name on the part of a respondent when the disputed domain name "resolves to a website that Respondent has designed to mimic Complainant's own in an attempt to pass itself off as Complainant").

 

Given the foregoing, Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in respect of <zillowhome.online>.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

As discussed below without being exhaustive, Respondent acted in bad faith.

 

Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address a website posing as if it may be a genuine website of Complainant or authorized by Complainant and there offers services under the ZILLOW brand that are similar or identical to Complainant's services. Respondent's use of <zillowhome.online> to pass itself off as Complainant is disruptive to Complainant's business and intended to deceptively attract internet users seeking Complainant and divert such users to Respondent's <zillowhome.online> domain name and website. Respondent's use of the at-issue domain name trades off the confusion Respondent created between its domain name and Complainant's ZILLOW trademark thereby demonstrating Respondent's bad faith registration and use of <zillowhome.online> under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See DatingDirect.com Ltd. v. Aston, FA 593977 (Forum Dec. 28, 2005) ("Respondent is appropriating Complainant's mark to divert Complainant's customers to Respondent's competing business. The Panel finds this diversion is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)."); see also, Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA 1612750 (Forum May 13, 2015) ("The Panel agrees that Respondent's use of the website to display products similar to Complainant's, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).")

 

Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the ZILLOW mark when it registered <zillowhome.online> as a domain name. Respondent's prior knowledge is apparent given the mark's fame and given Respondent's use of the domain name to address a website displaying Complainant's trademark and logo and offering real estate services like those offered by Complainant. Respondent's knowledge of Complainant's rights in ZILLOW further demonstrates Respondent's bad faith under the Policy. See Lemon Inc. v. Sumer Singh, FA 2110519 (Forum Sept. 5, 2024 ("registration of a disputed domain name with actual knowledge of another's trademark rights is sufficient to establish bad faith, and can be shown by the notoriety of the mark and the use the Respondent makes of the disputed domain name"); see also, Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name).

 

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 <zillowhome.online> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: September 3, 2026