Zestimate.xyz

The timeline behind zestimate.xyz

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. Z01 / MIPHAKONE VANHNOLLAT Claim Number: FA2609002247167 PARTIES Complainant is MFTB Holdco, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by William Schultz of Merchant & Gould, Minnesota, USA. Respondent is Z01 / MIPHAKONE VANHNOLLAT ("Respondent"), Laos. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <zestimate.xyz>, registered with Name.com, 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. Richard Hill as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on September 24, 2026; Forum received payment on September 24, 2026. On September 25, 2026, Name.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <zestimate.xyz> 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 September 28, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 19, 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@zestimate.xyz. Also on September 28, 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 October 20, 2026, 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 is a leading provider of real estate and home-related information, products, and services in the United States. Since its founding in 2006, Complainant has become one of the most recognized and trusted brands in the real estate industry. Complainant'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, Complainant's website receives millions of unique visitors each month, and its mobile applications are widely downloaded and used by consumers nationwide. Complainant owns the mark ZESTIMATE and uses it in connection with real estate valuation services and home value estimation. Complainant's Zestimate valuation tool is prominently displayed on every home detail page on Complainant's website and mobile applications, making it one of the most visible and frequently accessed features of Complainant's platform. The Zestimate valuation tool has been the subject of significant media coverage and public attention, and Complainant has released multiple major algorithm updates over the years to improve accuracy and coverage, including a widely publicized upgrade in 2019 incorporating neural network technology and computer vision, and a further major upgrade in 2021 improving accuracy for over 104 million homes. The Zestimate valuation tool has also been the subject of a two-year, $1 million data science competition (the "Zillow Prize"), which attracted more than 3,800 teams from 91 countries, further demonstrating the prominence and widespread recognition of the ZESTIMATE mark. Complainant asserts rights in the ZESTIMATE mark through its registration in the United States in 2007. Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its ZESTIMATE mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety and merely adds the ".xyz" 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 mark in any way. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the resolving website displays a login page, inviting users to enter personal information. Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's mark. The resolving website is used in furtherance of phishing. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant owns the mark ZESTIMATE and uses it in connection with real estate valuation services and home value estimation. Complainant's rights in its mark date back to 2007. The disputed domain name was registered in 2026. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. The resolving website is used in furtherance of phishing. 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 disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's ZESTIMATE mark in its entirety and merely adds the ".xyz" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). This does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Dell Inc. v. Protection of Private Person, 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"); see also Abbott Labs v. Whois Svc., FA 1254682 (Forum May 14, 2009) ("the addition of a gTLD is irrelevant in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a registered mark"); see also Twitter, Inc. v. Jie, FA 1919786 (Forum Dec. 9, 2020) ("The Panel considers the disputed domain name [<twitter.luxe>] to be identical to Complainant's registered [TWITTER] trademark."). Thus the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Respondent is not licensed or otherwise authorized to use Complainant's mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA 1613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists "Dale Anderson" as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)). Here, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as "Z01 / MIPHAKONE VANHNOLLAT". Thus the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The resolving website displays a page where users are asked to insert personal and confidential account information. This constitutes evidence of phishing. Phishing does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of a disputed domain name. See Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 690796 (Forum June 12, 2006) (respondent's use of disputed domain name for phishing was not bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use of disputed domain name pursuant to Policy). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name 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, Respondent used the disputed domain name in furtherance of phishing. This evinces bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Wells Fargo & Co. v. Maniac State, FA 608239 (Forum Jan. 19, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use where the respondent was using the <wellsbankupdate.com> domain name in order to fraudulently acquire the personal and financial information of the complainant's customers); see also Hess Corp. v. GR, FA 770909 (Forum Sept. 19, 2006) (finding that the respondent demonstrated bad faith registration and use because it was attempting to acquire the personal and financial information of Internet users through a confusingly similar domain name). Thus the Panel finds bad faith registration and use under 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 <zestimate.xyz> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Richard Hill, Panelist Dated: October 20, 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.