Zillow.monster, Trulia.monster

The timeline behind zillow.monster

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION MFTB Holdco, Inc. v. Digital IT Solution / Ziaul Haque Claim Number: FA2601002202046 PARTIES Complainant is MFTB Holdco, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by William Schultz of Merchant & Gould, Minnesota, USA. Respondent is Digital IT Solution / Ziaul Haque ("Respondent"), Bangladesh. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES The domain names at issue are <zillow.monster> and <trulia.monster>, registered with Dynadot Inc. 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. Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 27, 2026; Forum received payment on January 27, 2026. On January 30, 2026, Dynadot Inc confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <zillow.monster> and <trulia.monster> domain names are registered with Dynadot Inc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Dynadot Inc has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot 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 February 2, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 23, 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@zillow.monster and postmaster@trulia.monster. Also on February 2, 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 February 24, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant 1. Respondent's <zillow.monster> and <trulia.monster> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant's ZILLOW and TRULIA marks. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <zillow.monster> and <trulia.monster> domain names. 3. Respondent registered and uses the <zillow.monster> and <trulia.monster> domain names in bad faith. B. Respondent did not file a Response. FINDINGS Complainant provides home search and related services and holds registrations for the ZILLOW and TRULIA marks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") Reg. No. 3,150,074, registered September 26, 2006, and Reg. No 3,210,548, registered February 20, 2007). Respondent registered the <zillow.monster> and <trulia.monster> domain names on January 13, 2025, and uses them to divert users to adult-oriented content and other pay-per-click links. 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 Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the ZILLOW and TRULIA marks based on registration with the USPTO. See Brooks Sports, Inc. v. Joyce Cheadle, FA 1819065 (Forum Dec. 28, 2018) (finding that Complainant's registration of the BROOKS mark with the USPTO sufficiently conferred its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Respondent's <zillow.monster> and <trulia.monster> domain names use Complainant's ZILLOW and TRULIA marks and simply add the ".monster" top-level domain. These changes do not sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Dell Inc. v. Protection of Private Person / Privacy Protection, FA 1681432 (Forum Aug. 1, 2016) ("A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs. Likewise, the absence of spaces must be disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax prohibits them.") The Panel similarly finds that Respondent's <zillow.monster> and <trulia.monster> domain names confusingly similar to Complainant's ZILLOW and TRULIA marks. The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) ("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"). Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <zillow.monster> and <trulia.monster> domain names as Respondent is not commonly known by the domain names, and Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use its ZILLOW and TRULIA marks. The WHOIS information identifies Respondent as "Digital IT Solution / Ziaul Haque". Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Radio Flyer Inc. v. er nong wu, FA 1919893 (Forum Dec. 16, 2020) ("Here, the WHOIS information lists "er nong wu" as the registrant and no information suggests Complainant has authorized Respondent to use the RADIO FLYER mark in any way. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).") Complainant argues that Respondent fails to use the <zillow.monster> and <trulia.monster> domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use as Respondent is using the domain name to divert Internet users to Respondent's websites. Complainant provides screenshots showing that the disputed domain names resolve to websites that offer adult-oriented content as well as general pay-per-click links. The Panel finds that this does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, and thus Respondent has no rights under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Fitness International, LLC v. Muhammad Awais Aman, FA 2111534 (Forum September 17, 2024) ("Respondent is likely using the disputed domain name, which will likely be seen as connected to Complainant, to attract and redirect web traffic to his website for Respondent's profit…not a legitimate interest.") The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith The Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the <zillow.monster> and <trulia.monster> domain names to divert users to Respondent's websites for commercial gain, demonstrating bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See CFA Properties, Inc. v. El Mariache/ Mariache Corp, FA 1660175 (Forum Mar. 8, 2016) (finding bad faith registration and use because "Respondent used the <chickfilafoundation.org> domain name to attract Internet users for commercial gain"). Some of the content at the disputed domain names is pornographic content, which is further evidence of bad faith. See 18th and Walnut LLC v. jjjct/c ray, FA 2164495 (Forum Aug. 20, 2025) (finding that Respondent's use of the disputed domain name to resolve a website promoting adult and pornographic content constitutes evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)). Complainant argues that Respondent registered the <zillow.monster> and <trulia.monster> domain names with knowledge of Complainant's rights in the ZILLOW and TRULIA marks. The Panel agrees, noting the fame of the coined marks, and finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain names with full knowledge of Complainant's rights, demonstrating further bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See 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 "actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name"). The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). 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 <zillow.monster> and <trulia.monster> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist Dated: February 25, 2026 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

Source of record: FORUM . Reproduced for research; FORUM is the authoritative source.