Redfinzillowextension.com

The timeline behind redfinzillowextension.com

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

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. Steven Steinbeck Claim Number: FA2606002228014 PARTIES Complainant is MFTB Holdco, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by William Schultz of Merchant & Gould, Minnesota, USA. Respondent is Steven Steinbeck ("Respondent"), California, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <redfinzillowextension.com>, registered with Name.com, Inc. PANEL The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Karen J. Bernstein as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 18, 2026; Forum received payment on June 18, 2026. On June 22, 2026, Name.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <redfinzillowextension.com> domain name is registered with Name.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Name.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Name.com, 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 June 25, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 15, 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@redfinzillowextension.com. Also on June 25, 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. A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on July 15, 2026. On July 16, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Karen J. Bernstein 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. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PRELIMINARY ISSUES: RESPONDENT'S INFORMAL RESPONSES Respondent submitted two unsolicited emails to Forum prior to the appointment of the Panel (the "Informal Responses"), wherein Respondent consented to transfer the <redfinzillowexchange.com> domain name (the "Disputed Domain Name") to Complainant and a proposed settlement agreement to terminate the proceedings in an effort to avoid a Panel decision on the merits of the case. Complainant did not reply to the Informal Responses. The Panel recognizes that Respondent is not represented by counsel. Rule 10(b) requires the Panel to ensure that the Parties are to be treated equally and to be given a fair opportunity to present their respective cases. In light of the fact that Respondent submitted a formal Response that contains a proper certification pursuant to Rule 5(c)(viii), the Panel will not consider the Informal Responses because they did not contain the proper certification pursuant to Rule 5(c)(viii), and the Panel will proceed to its decision based on the Complaint and the Response. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant MFTB Holdco, Inc d/b/a Zillow ("Zillow") is a leading provider of real estate and home-related information, products, and services in the United States. Since its founding in 2006, Zillow has become one of the most recognized and trusted brands in the real estate industry. Zillow's website, located at www.zillow.com, is among the most visited real estate websites in the United States, offering users access to real estate listings, home value estimates, rental information, mortgage tools, and a variety of other resources. According to publicly available data, Zillow's website receives millions of unique visitors each month, and its mobile applications are widely downloaded and used by consumers nationwide. Complainant's ZILLOW mark is registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office in connection with a broad array of goods and services (collectively, the "ZILLOW Mark"). Complainant has continuously and prominently used the ZILLOW Mark in commerce since at least 2006, and has invested significant resources in advertising, marketing, and promoting the ZILLOW brand through various channels, including online, television, print, and social media. Zillow's social media presence is substantial, with its Instagram page boasting over 467,000 followers, and its other social media accounts similarly commanding large audiences. Zillow's innovative products and services have been recognized by industry organizations and the media, further enhancing the strength and goodwill associated with the ZILLOW Mark. For example, Zillow has received awards such as the Webby Awards and Hired.com Top Global Employers award. As a result of these efforts, the ZILLOW Mark has become famous and is widely recognized by consumers as identifying Zillow's high-quality real estate services. Zillow's longstanding and widespread use of the ZILLOW Mark, together with its significant investments in marketing and promotion, have resulted in substantial goodwill and strong common law rights in the ZILLOW Mark. Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name on or about January 19, 2026. Respondent has no statutory or common law trademark rights or any other right or legitimate interest to the ZILLOW Mark or in the Disputed Domain Name. Zillow has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use the ZILLOW Mark or any derivative mark for any purpose. Zillow's rights in the ZILLOW Mark date back to at least as early as 2006. As such, there is no controversy as to the fact that Zillow has priority over Respondent with respect to the ZILLOW Mark and has owned trademark rights in the ZILLOW Mark long before Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name. Respondent has no statutory or common law trademark rights or any other right or legitimate interest to the ZILLOW Mark or in the Disputed Domain Name. Zillow has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use the ZILLOW Mark or any derivative mark for any purpose. There is no evidence that the Disputed Domain Name was registered for legitimate reasons. Rather, Respondent associated the Disputed Domain Name with a website that prominently uses the ZILLOW Mark, giving the false impression that the website is affiliated or associated with, endorsed by, or connected to Zillow. Moreover, Respondent's use of both the ZILLOW and REDFIN marks creates the false impression that ZILLOW and REDFIN are related, connected, associated, or affiliated with each other. Consumers who view that content are likely to believe that the content is put out by a combination of Redfin and Zillow. Zillow has not authorized its content to be displayed on Respondent's website. Further, the Website features a logo that is nearly identical to the blue home portion of the ZILLOW registered figurative mark, which creates the false impression that it is authorized by Zillow. Respondent is trading on the goodwill associated with the ZILLOW and REDFIN trademarks. Respondent's Terms of Use outline that it offers a "subscription model where you are billed either Monthly or Annually, automatically." Consumers who believe that Respondent's website is related to Zillow (or Redfin) are more likely to sign up for the service. Zillow has no opportunity to inform consumers that Respondent's website is not affiliated with Zillow and that a third party is charging them for services. Thus, the entire purpose of the Disputed Domain Name is to create confusion that the website is affiliated or associated with, endorsed by, or connected to Zillow. Zillow also avers that Respondent's terms of use contain a disclaimer that references Zillow and Redfin. The disclaimer confirms that Respondent knew of Zillow, but it failed to provide consumers who arrive on the site and ignore the terms that there is no affiliation. B. Respondent Respondent repeats in its Response to unilaterally consent to the relief requested by the Complainant and will, upon order of the Panel, allow the transfer to proceed. Respondent is an individual and "hobbyist developer," who developed an independent Chrome browser extension, known as the "Redfin & Zillow Analytics Extension," whose functionality related directly to listing pages opened by users on Zillow and Redfin. Respondent used the Disputed Domain Name to identify the sites with which the extension was designed to operate, not to represent that the extension was owned, sponsored, or endorsed by either company. Respondent recognizes that the original Disputed Domain Name and product naming could have communicated the extension's independence more prominently. After receiving the Complaint, Respondent ceased offering the extension from the Disputed Domain Name, acquired replacement domain names, undertook substantial rebranding, discontinued the challenged product title and graphics, and offered to transfer the Disputed Domain Name promptly and without payment. Respondent submits these post-notice actions as evidence of cooperation and mitigation of any potential issues with Complainant and that he has never meant any harm to a billion-dollar firm like Zillow. He admits that these post-notice actions do not retroactively determine whether the original registration or use was permissible. Notwithstanding, Respondent attempts to argue that taken as a whole, the evidence does not support Complainant's assertion that Respondent's sole or entire purpose was to impersonate Zillow, deceive consumers, collect information from unsuspecting visitors, disrupt Zillow, engage in phishing, or hold the domain for resale. FINDINGS Complainant has proven all three elements of the Policy. 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. Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Zillow has demonstrated to the Panel's satisfaction that it owns rights in the ZILLOW Mark. The Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to Zillow's Mark given that it combines Zillow's registered ZILLOW Mark with one third-party mark used for competing services and the generic term, "Extension." Further, the .com suffix is disregarded in the analysis. See Elenie Reese v. Eddie Morgan, FA 917029 (Forum Apr. 5, 2007) (the mere addition of a generic Top-Level Domain, such as ".com" is insufficient to differentiate a disputed domain name from a trademark). These additions do not substantially diminish the similarity between the Disputed Domain Name and the ZILLOW Mark for purposes of the Policy. See, e.g., JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Rakib Hasan, FA 2165551 (Forum (Aug. 7, 2025) (finding juulheets.com confusingly similar to Juul);; NSK LTD. v. Chdd Baboo, FA 1696661 (Forum Nov. 16, 2016) (finding nsk-ina-bearings.com confusingly similar to NSK); NSK LTD. v. Niu Yanqing/Beijing Jia Virtue Int'l Trade Co., FA 1697729 (Forum Nov. 14, 2016); Target Brands, Inc. v. M. V. P. / Mv Professional Marketing Services, FA 1644580 (Forum Dec. 8, 2015) (finding targetcvs.com and similar domain names confusingly similar to Target). The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights. Zillow has proven the first element of the Policy. Rights or Legitimate Interests It is well established that the onus is initially on complainant to make out a prima facie case that respondent does not have a right or legitimate interest in the domain name, after which respondent has the burden to come forward and rebut this showing. The Complainant provided evidence that it owns trademark registrations for ZILLOW before the Disputed Domain Name was registered and acquired by the Respondent. The Complainant is not affiliated with nor has it licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the ZILLOW Mark. Respondent's name does not bear any resemblance to the Disputed Domain Name. The record before the Panel also does not reflect the Respondent's use of or demonstrable preparations to use, the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Furthermore, in view of the nature of the Disputed Domain Name and the fact that Respondent uses the Disputed Domain Name for commercial gain through a paid subscription service to access his Chrome browser extension, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith The Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the Disputed Domain Name. Firstly, the Disputed Domain Name consists, in part, of Complainant's ZILLOW Mark, and this clearly evidences that Respondent had Zillow in mind at the time he registered the Disputed Domain Name, which was approximately 20 years after Zillow first used the ZILLOW Mark. Secondly, the website located at the Disputed Domain Name (the "Website") features the ZILLOW figurative mark, which gives the false impression that it is authorized by Zillow. Thirdly, Respondent offered his Chrome browser extension on the Website through use of the Disputed Domain Name for commercial purposes. That is, to access Respondent's Chrome browser extension, it required a monthly or annual paid subscription. Thus, Respondent was using the Disputed Domain Name for commercial purposes, which capitalized on the ZILLOW Mark without authorization. Fourthly, Respondent's argument that the disclaimer dispelled any confusion that the Disputed Domain Name and the Website were not associated with Zillow and Redfin is of no aid to Respondent. The disclaimer was not prominently displayed on the Website. Indeed, there were steps one had to take to access the the "Privacy & Terms" webpage link that a user was required to affirmatively when signing up and paying for access to Respondent's Chrome browser extension. First, the user had to access the subscription page, then complete the sign up form, fill in the credit card/ACH details, and affirmatively accept the Privacy & Terms, which was a highlighted link. If the user was even interested in clicking the link to read the Privacy & Terms, it consisted of only one sentence in small font that stated that Respondent was "not affiliated with Redfin or Zillow in any capacity." To go through the steps of clicking on the sign-up page, filling in the name and credit card/ACH details, and then possibly clicking yet another link to read the Privacy & Terms to see one sentence that was not in large font, bold, or underlined words that would draw the user's attention does not properly put the user on notice of the that Respondent was not affiliated with Zillow. See Boston Pizza Royalties Ltd. v. ravibhai Parmar, FA2200737 (Forum, Feb. 12, 2026) (holding the mere existence of a disclaimer does not establish a respondent has rights or legitimate interests and does not cure bad faith). Zillow has proven the third element of the Policy. DECISION The Disputed Domain Name contains the ZILLOW Mark and the trademark of a third-party company that is not a party to this proceeding. While it may be preferable for a complainant to obtain the consent of a third-party rights holder before seeking transfer of a domain name, such consent is not necessary, and the alternative remedy of cancellation is properly viewed with disfavor. See, e.g., Ginger Labs, Inc. v. Host Master/Njalla Okta LLC, FA 2155478 (Forum Jun 23, 2025) (finding notabilityforwindows.com confusingly similar to NOTABILITY); Target Brands, Inc. v. M. V. P./MV Professional Marketing Services, FA 1644580 (Forum Dec. 8, 2015) (ordering transfer of ‹targetcvs.com› and similar domain names, and expressing disfavor toward cancellation as alternative remedy); Decathlon SAS v. Nadia Michalski, D2014-1996 (WIPO Jan. 27, 2015) (ordering transfer of decathlon-nike.com without prejudice to rights that might be asserted by nonparty trademark owner); W.W. Grainger, Inc. v. George Washere, FA 1528594 (Forum Dec. 13, 2013) (ordering transfer of graingerwebex.com). See generally WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions ("WIPO Overview 3.1"), § 4.13 (discussing appropriate remedy for domain name that includes trademark of nonparty). The Panel considers it appropriate under the circumstances of this case to order a transfer of the Disputed Domain Name to Zillow, without prejudice to any right that might be asserted by the trademark owner of REDFIN that is not a party to this proceeding. Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <redfinzillowextension.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Zillow. Karen J. Bernstein, Panelist Dated: July 27, 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.