Complainant is Fenix International Limited c/o Walters Law Group, United States of America (“United States”).
Respondent is Domain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org, United States / Kelly Smit, onlyfansleak, Netherlands, and Withheld for Privacy Purposes, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf, Iceland / Robert Scean, Netherlands.
2. The Domain Names and RegistrarsThe disputed domain name
The disputed domain name
Both disputed domain names are here named the Domain Names.
3. Procedural HistoryThe Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 18, 2021. On August 18, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrars a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Names. On August 18, 2021, the Registrars transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Names which differed from the named Respondents and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on August 20, 2021 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on August 20, 2021.
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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 31, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 20, 2021. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on September 21, 2021.
The Center appointed Marina Perraki as the sole panelist in this matter on September 27, 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. Preliminary issue: Consolidation of RespondentsThe Panel has considered the possible consolidation of the Complaint for the Domain Names. According to WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.11.2, “Where a complaint is filed against multiple respondents, panels look at whether (i) the domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control, and (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all parties. Procedural efficiency would also underpin panel consideration of such a consolidation scenario”.
The Panel notes the following features of the Domain Names and arguments submitted by Complainant in favor of the consolidation of the Domain Names:
- the Domain Names share the same structure and include the brand ONLYFANS along with other words, which differ between them only by the first letter “(l)eak” and “(fr)eak” respectively;
- as Complainant demonstrated, the Domain Names lead to websites which both allow users to access content pirated from Complainant’s services, presenting it as if such content was “leaked”;
- per Complaint, the “ONLYFANS LEAK DUMP” link in the header menu of the
- both registrants’ information show an address in the Netherlands, one of which is obviously fictitious, for the
All the above, along with the fact that the named Respondents did not submit any arguments to rebut this inference is taken into account by the Panel.
The Panel finds that the consolidation of the Domain Names is fair to the Parties, and Respondents have been given an opportunity to object to consolidation through the submission of pleadings to the Complaint (if indeed there is more than one Respondent for these Domain Names), but have chosen not to rebut the consolidation (see WIPO Overview 3.0, sections 4.11.1 and 4.11.2; Virgin Enterprises Limited v. LINYANXIAO aka lin yanxiao,WIPO Case No. D2016-2302). Based on the Complaint, the Panel finds that it is more likely than not that the Domain Names are in common control of one entity; hence, the Panel grants the consolidation for the Domain Names (and will refer to these Respondents as “Respondent”).
5. Factual BackgroundComplainant owns and operates a website at “www.onlyfans.com” for several years in connection with the provision of a social media platform that allows users to post and subscribe to audiovisual content. Per Complaint, in 2021, Complainant’s website is, according to Alexa Internet, the 379th most popular website and it is the 213th most popular website in the United States.
Complainant owns trademark registrations for ONLYFANS, including:
- European Union trademark registration no 017946559, ONLYFANS (figurative), filed on August 22, 2018, and registered on January 9, 2019, for goods and services in international classes 9, 35, 38, 41, and 42, and
- European Union trademark registration no 017912377, ONLYFANS (word), filed on June 5, 2018, and registered on January 9, 2019, for goods and services in international classes 9, 35, 38, 41, and 42.
The Domain Name
Complainant sent a cease-and-desist letter to Respondent on July 15, 2021, to which Respondent did not respond.
6. Parties’ Contentions A. ComplainantComplainant asserts that it has established all three elements required under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy for a transfer of the Domain Names.
B. RespondentRespondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
7. Discussion and FindingsParagraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements which Complainant must satisfy with respect to the Domain Name:
(i) the Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names; and
(iii) the Domain Names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly SimilarThe Domain Names incorporate Complainant’s trademark ONLYFANS in its entirety. This is sufficient to establish confusing similarity (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7).
The addition of the words “leak” and “freak” respectively after Complainant’s mark in the Domain Names does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity, as the trademark ONLYFANS remains clearly distinguishable (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8).
The Country Code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”) “.cc” is disregarded, as ccTLDs typically do not form part of the comparison as they are required for technical reasons (Rexel Developpements SAS v. Zhan Yequn,WIPO Case No. D2017-0275; Hay & Robertson International Licensing AG v. C. J. Lovik,
WIPO Case No. D2002-0122). Similarly, the same line of reasoning applies to the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” in the
The Panel finds that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the ONLYFANS mark of Complainant.
Complainant has established Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).
B. Rights or Legitimate InterestsPursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, Respondent may establish its rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names, among other circumstances, by showing any of the following elements:
(i) before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Names or a name corresponding to the Domain Names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) Respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the Domain Names, even if it has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Names, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
The Panel concludes that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names.
Respondent has not submitted any response and has not claimed any such rights or legitimate interests with respect to the Domain Names. As per Complainant, Respondent was not authorized to register the Domain Names.
Prior to the notice of the dispute, Respondent did not demonstrate any use of the Domain Names or a trademark corresponding to the Domain Names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
On the contrary, as Complainant demonstrated, the Domain Names resolve to the Websites offering adult entertainment services namely services similar to those provided by Complainant and including also content copied from content of users on Complainant’s platform. This reinforces the (false) association between Complainant’s trademark and the Domain Names. Lastly, the nature of the Domain Names carries a risk of implied affiliation (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1).
The Panel finds that these circumstances do not confer upon Respondent any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names.
Complainant has established Policy, paragraph 4(a)(ii).
C. Registered and Used in Bad FaithParagraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that the following circumstances, “in particular but without limitation”, are evidence of the registration and use of the Domain Names in “bad faith”:
(i) circumstances indicating that Respondent has registered or has acquired the Domain Names primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the Domain Names’ registration to Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of its documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the Domain Names; or
(ii) that Respondent has registered the Domain Names in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) that Respondent has registered the Domain Names primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) that by using the Domain Names, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s websites or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s websites or location or of a product or service on Respondent’s websites or location.
The Panel concludes that Respondent has registered and used the Domain Names in bad faith.
Because the ONLYFANS mark had been used and registered by Complainant before the Domain Names’ registrations, the Panel finds it more likely than not that Respondent had Complainant’s mark in mind when registering the Domain Names (Tudor Games, Inc. v. Domain Hostmaster, Customer ID No. 09382953107339 dba Whois Privacy Services Pty Ltd / Domain Administrator, Vertical Axis Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2014-1754; Parfums Christian Dior v. Javier Garcia Quintas and Christiandior.net, WIPO Case No. D2000-0226).
Respondent should have known about Complainant’s rights, as such knowledge is readily obtainable through a simple browser search (see Caesars World, Inc. v. Forum LLC,WIPO Case No. D2005-0517; Compart AG v. Compart.com / Vertical Axis Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2009-0462).
Furthermore, Respondent could have conducted a trademark search and would have found Complainant’s prior registrations in respect of ONLYFANS (Citrix Online LLC v. Ramalinga Reddy Sanikommu Venkata,WIPO Case No. D2012-1338).
As regards the Websites, Complainant demonstrated that the content related to the Domain Names was targeting Complainant’s trademark and website content. This further supports registration in bad faith (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4), reinforcing the likelihood of confusion, as Internet users were likely to consider the Domain Names leading to the Websites, as in some way endorsed by or connected with Complainant (Marie Claire Album v. Whoisguard Protected, Whoisguard, Inc. / Dexter Ouwehand, DO,WIPO Case No. D2017-1367). This also further supports knowledge of Complainant and its field of activity.
As regards bad faith use of the Domain Names, Complainant has demonstrated that the Domain Names were used to create the Websites, offering similar services to those of Complainant, and even copying content of the content of Complainant’s platform users, thereby giving the false impression that the Websites were operated by a company affiliated to Complainant or an authorised partner of Complainant. The Domain Names operated therefore by intentionally creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s trademark and business as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the websites they resolved to. This supports the finding of bad faith use (Aktiebolaget Electrolux v. Priscilla Quaiotti Passos,WIPO Case No. D2011-0388 and WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4).
Lastly, the Domain Names were registered with a privacy shield service to hide the registrant’s identity. Respondent’s concealment of the Domain Names holder’s identity through use of a privacy shield constitutes further indication of bad faith (Fifth Third Bancorp v. Secure Whois Information Service,WIPO Case No. D2006-0696).
Under these circumstances and on this record, the Panel finds that Respondent has registered and is using the Domain Names in bad faith.
Complainant has established Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii).
8. DecisionFor the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Domain Names
Marina Perraki
Sole Panelist
Date: October 11, 2021