WIPO Domain Name Decision D2021-2522 for buyofansubs.com, buyonlyfansubs.com, ofsubs.com, onlyfanssubs.com

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Fenix International Limited v. Ladislav Hricko / 1a world Ltd, admin Me / Whois Privacy Corp. Case No. D2021-2522 1. The Parties

The Complainant is Fenix International Limited c/o Walters Law Group, United States.

The Respondents are Ladislav Hricko, Slovakia; 1a world Ltd, admin Me, United Kingdom; and Whois Privacy Corp., the Bahamas.

2. The Domain Names and Registrars

The disputed domain names and are registered with Gransy s.r.o. d/b/a Subreg.cz.

The disputed domain name is registered with Nicenic International Group Co., Limited.

The disputed domain name is registered with Internet Domain Service BS Corp.

Gransy s.r.o. d/b/a Subreg.cz, Nicenic International Group Co., Limited and Internet Domain Service BS Corp. are referred to below collectively and individually as “the Registrar”.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 3, 2021. On the following day, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On August 5, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification responses disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on August 5, 2021, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. On the same day, the Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 19, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 8, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 8, 2021.

The Center received an informal email communication in English on September 13, 2021 sent from an address in the disputed domain name by a person claiming to be the owner of that disputed domain name. On the same day, the Center asked the sender to identity himself or herself and to clarify his or her relationship to the Respondent. No reply was received.

The Center appointed Matthew Kennedy as the sole panelist in this matter on September 21, 2021. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant operates the OnlyFans subscription-only social media platform at “www.onlyfans.com” where users can post and subscribers can view audiovisual content. The Complainant registered the domain name on January 29, 2013. The Complainant holds multiple trademark registrations, including United Kingdom trademark registrations numbers EU017912377 for ONLYFANS, and EU017946559 for ONLYFANS and a padlock device (the “OnlyFans logo”), both registered on January 9, 2019 and both specifying goods and services in classes 9, 35, 38, 41, and 42. Those trademark registrations remain current. According to evidence provided by the Complainant, Alexa Internet rated the Complainant’s social media platform among the 500 websites with the most global Internet traffic and engagement during a 90-day period ending on May 20, 2021.

The Respondent is variously named as an individual, a company and a privacy service with respect to different disputed domain names. The disputed domain names were registered on the dates and in the registrant names shown in the following table:

Registration date

Disputed domain name

Registrant

October 29, 2020

buyonlyfansubs.com

Ladislav Hricko

July 16, 2021

onlyfanssubs.com

Whois Privacy Corp.

July 28, 2021

buyofansubs.com

Ladislav Hricko

July 29, 2021

ofsubs.com

1a world ltd, admin Me

The disputed domain names and formerly resolved to very similar websites in English offering for sale subscribers, likes, and comments for OnlyFans accounts. The website titles were the operative elements of the respective disputed domain names, incorporating the padlock device used in the OnlyFans logo and, in the case of “onlyfanssubs”, the entirety of the OnlyFans logo. Both websites prominently displayed the OnlyFans logo in an image of a mobile phone screen. Much of the content of the two sites was identical. The text included statements such as: “Make your OnlyFans account more attractive with many likes and subscribers” and “Don’t have an OnlyFans account yet? Join the growing community of OnlyFans and start earning today!” The “About Us” section, which was both inconspicuous and difficult to read, described the operator of each site as “the best global partner service to buy OnlyFans likes and subscribers”.

On July 28, 2021, the Complainant sent a cease-and-desist letter to the registrants of the above disputed domain names. On the same day and the following day, respectively, the disputed domain names and were registered and began resolving to basically the same websites as the earlier disputed domain names, with the titles written with the same padlock device as before but with the titles reflecting the operative elements of the new disputed domain names. Further, the website associated with the disputed domain name did not display the OnlyFans logo in an image of a mobile phone screen. After this, the first two registered disputed domain names began redirecting to the latter two.

The Registrar confirmed that all the Registration Agreements are in English while those for the disputed domain names and are also in Czech.

5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ONLYFANS mark. Confusing similarity exists even when the disputed domain names contain an abbreviation of the mark. Their confusing similarity to the mark is confirmed by the content of the websites to which they resolve.

The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. The Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant and has not received any authorization, license, or consent, whether express or implied, to use the Complainant’s marks in the disputed domain names or in any other manner. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. The Respondent is using the disputed domain names to redirect Internet users to a website offering illegal services.

The disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. Registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a widely-known trademark, as is the case here, creates a presumption of bad faith. The websites associated with the disputed domain names display the Complainant’s registered logo. The disputed domain names incorporate typosquatted versions of the Complainant’s ONLYFANS mark. The Respondent uses the disputed domain names to entice users to breach the Complainant’s Terms of Service by purchasing likes, comments, and other user activities to manipulate Complainant’s platform.

B. Respondent

An informal email communication in English sent from the disputed domain name by a person claiming to be the owner of that disputed domain name made the following assertions. It is indisputable that the disputed domain name does not contain any trademark belonging to the Complainant. The only disputed domain name that contains the Complainant’s trademark is but that only redirects to . Therefore, the sender sees no tangible reason why the Panel should find against the Respondent. Otherwise, the Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings 6.1 Consolidation: Multiple Domain Name Registrants

The amended Complaint initiates disputes in relation to nominally different domain name registrants. The Complainant submits that the registrants of the disputed domain names are either the same person or under common control and requests consolidation of the disputes against the disputed domain name registrants pursuant to paragraph 10(e) of the Rules. The disputed domain name registrants, if there are indeed more than one, did not comment on the Complainant’s consolidation request.

Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules states that a complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder. However, the Panel does not consider that paragraph 3(c) was intended to enable a single person or entity to put a complainant to the unnecessary time, expense and effort of initiating multiple proceedings against technically different domain name registrants, particularly when each registration raises the same issues. In addressing the Complainant’s request, the Panel will consider whether (i) the disputed domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control; and (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all Parties. See Speedo Holdings B.V. v. Programmer, Miss Kathy Beckerson, John Smitt, Matthew Simmons,WIPO Case No. D2010-0281 and WIPO Overview 3.0, section 4.11.2.
As regards common control, the Panel notes that two of the disputed domain names (one of the earlier two and one of the latter two) are registered in the same person’s name. The identity of the underlying registrant of one disputed domain name is not disclosed in the record. All of the disputed domain names resolve to websites with the same layout and much content that is identical. The titles of the websites, though different, are all presented in the same fancy script with the same padlock device used in the Complainant’s OnlyFans logo. They offer the same services and the product plans on each website are described, priced and laid out in the same way. After the Complainant sent a cease-and-desist letter regarding the first two registered disputed domain names, the other two were registered within a day after which the first two registered disputed domain names began redirecting to them. In these circumstances, the Panel finds that at least two and possibly more of the disputed domain names were registered by the same person and that, in any case, all four of the disputed domain names are under common control.

As regards fairness and equity, the Panel sees no reason why consolidation of the disputes would be unfair or inequitable to any Party.

Accordingly, the Panel decides to consolidate the disputes regarding the nominally different disputed domain name registrants (referred to below as “the Respondent”) in a single proceeding.

6.2 Substantive Issues

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must prove each of the following elements with respect to each disputed domain name:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and

(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Based on the evidence presented, the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the ONLYFANS mark.

The disputed domain names and wholly incorporate the ONLYFANS mark. In the disputed domain name , the initial element is the word “buy” and the final part of the operative element is “subs” (an abbreviation for “subscribers”), which overlaps with the last letter of the mark. The disputed domain name also contains the abbreviation “subs”, but without overlap. Given that the mark remains clearly recognizable within both these disputed domain names, the Panel does not consider that these other elements avoid a finding of confusing similarity. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.8.

The disputed domain name includes the majority of the letters in the ONLYFANS mark (“ofans”), including the initial letter and the whole second word that forms part of that mark. The initial element of this disputed domain name is the word “buy” and the final part of its operative element is the abbreviation “subs”, which overlaps with the last letter of the mark. Meanwhile, the disputed domain name includes the initials of the two words that form the ONLYFANS mark (“of”) and the abbreviation “subs”. Thus, these disputed domain names combine condensed versions of the ONLYFANS mark with an abbreviation for “subscribers”, which is a reference to a feature of the Complainant’s OnlyFans website as a subscription-based platform. In these circumstances, the Panel considers that there is a prima facie case of confusing similarity between these disputed domain names and the ONLYFANS mark. Further, the Panel takes note that one of the websites to which these disputed domain names resolve displays the ONLYFANS and device mark, while both offer for sale products to manipulate the Complainant’s OnlyFans platform, which confirms that the Respondent is seeking to target the ONLYFANS trademark through these disputed domain names. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.15.

The disputed domain names all include a generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) suffix (“.com”). As a mere technical requirement of domain name registration, a gTLD suffix is normally disregarded in the comparison between a disputed domain name and a trademark for the purposes of the first element of the Policy.

Therefore, the Panel finds that all the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant has satisfied the first element in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out the following circumstances which, without limitation, if found by the panel, shall demonstrate that the respondent has rights to, or legitimate interests in, a disputed domain name, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy:

(i) before any notice to [the respondent] of the dispute, [the respondent’s] use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the [disputed] domain name or a name corresponding to the [disputed] domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

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

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

As regards the first circumstance set out above, the disputed domain names resolve or redirect to websites that offer for sale subscribers and likes for Complainant’s accounts. The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ONLYFANS mark. The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant and has not received any authorization, license, or consent, whether express or implied, to use the Complainant’s marks in the disputed domain names or in any other manner. The Panel considers that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent is not using the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services within the circumstances of paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy.

As regards the second circumstance, the Respondent is variously identified in the Registrar’s WhoIs database as “Ladislav Hricko” and “1a world Ltd, admin Me”, not the disputed domain names. In the case of one disputed domain name, the Respondent’s identity is masked by a privacy service. There is no evidence indicating that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain names as envisaged by paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy.

As regards the third circumstance, the disputed domain names resolve or redirect to websites offering services for sale. This is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names within the circumstances of paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy.

In summary, the Panel considers that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. The Respondent failed to rebut that prima facie case because he did not allege any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names.

Therefore, based on the record of this proceeding, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the second element in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that certain circumstances, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration or use of a domain name in bad faith. The fourth circumstance is as follows:

“(iv) by using the [disputed] domain name, [the respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [the respondent’s] web site or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [the respondent’s] web site or location or of a product or service on [the respondent’s] web site or location.”

The disputed domain names were registered in 2020 and 2021, after the Complainant obtained its trademark registrations for ONLYFANS. Two disputed domain names wholly incorporate the ONLYFANS mark while all the disputed domain names combine that mark or a condensed version of that mark with “subs”, an abbreviation of “subscribers”, which is clearly a reference to a feature of the Complainant’s website as a subscription-only platform. The websites to which the disputed domain names resolve or redirect make numerous references to the Complainant’s website as they offer products to manipulate that platform. These facts indicate to the Panel that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and targeted its ONLYFANS trademark at the times at which he registered the disputed domain names.

The Respondent uses the disputed domain names to resolve or redirect to websites that display titles that mimic the ONLYFANS and device mark, and in three cases display that actual mark. The text displayed on the website, which encourages Internet users to create or improve an OnlyFans account, gives the misleading impression that the websites are somehow affiliated with, or endorsed by, the Complainant. There is no disclaimer that the Respondent has no relationship with the Complainant nor any clear statement as to who the Respondent is. The websites are offering services for sale. In view of these circumstances, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are intended to attract Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s ONLYFANS trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s websites or of a service on those websites, within the terms of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. The Complainant has satisfied the third element in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain names , , and be transferred to the Complainant.

Matthew Kennedy
Sole Panelist
Date: October 5, 2021

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy