The Complainant is Fenix International Limited c/o Walters Law Group, United States.
The Respondent is Withheld for Privacy Purposes, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf, Iceland / drake b, Turkey.
2. The Domain Name and RegistrarThe disputed domain name
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 5, 2021. On October 5, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 5, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on October 7, 2021 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on October 7, 2021.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the 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 October 12, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 1, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 2, 2021.
The Center appointed Tobias Zuberbühler as the sole panelist in this matter on November 5, 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 BackgroundThe Complainant owns and operates a website in connection with the provision of a social media platform that allows users to post and subscribe to audiovisual content on the World Wide Web.
The Complainant owns trademark registrations in various jurisdictions, including the European Union Trade Mark ONLYFANS (Reg. No. 017946559, registered on January 9, 2019), the European Union Trade Mark ONLYFANS (Reg. No. 017912377, registered on January 9, 2019) and the United States trademark ONLYFANS (Reg. No. 5769267, registered on June 4, 2019). The Complainant has been using its trademarks since at least 2016.
The Complainant further holds the domain name
The disputed domain name was registered on May 6, 2021 and resolved to a website offering unauthorized access to the Complainant’s services by selling accounts to the Complainant’s services in violation of the Complainant’s policy. The website contained a lock logo identical to the lock component of the Complainant’s registered trademark. In the meantime, the website has been deactivated.
Before initiating the present proceeding, the Complainant sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Respondent. The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s cease-and-desist letter.
5. Parties’ Contentions A. ComplainantThe Complainant alleges that it has satisfied all elements of the Policy, paragraph 4.
The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be cancelled.
B. RespondentThe Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and FindingsBased on the facts and evidence introduced by the Complainant, and with regard to paragraphs 4(a), (b) and (c) of the Policy, the Panel concludes as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly SimilarThe Complainant has submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate its registered rights in the ONLYFANS trademark.
The Complainant’s trademark is wholly reproduced in the disputed domain name.
A domain name is “identical or confusingly similar” to a trademark for the purposes of the Policy when the domain name includes the trademark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of other terms in the domain name (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Richard MacLeod d/b/a For Sale, WIPO Case No. D2000-0662). The addition of other terms or letters, like “gg”, does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity since the Complainant’s trademark remains clearly recognizable in the dispute domain name. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, section 1.8.
Therefore, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ONLYFANS trademark.
The Complainant has thus fulfilled the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
B. Rights or Legitimate InterestsThere are no indications before the Panel of any rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant contends that the Respondent is neither affiliated with the Complainant nor making any bona fide use of the disputed domain name.
The Complainant has credibly alleged that the Respondent used the disputed domain name for generating revenue by offering unauthorized account selling services while taking advantage of the Complainant’s trademark notoriety. This cannot be considered as a bona fide offering of goods or services or a noncommercial use.
Based on the Complainant’s credible contentions, the Panel finds that the Complainant, having made out a prima facie case which remains unrebutted by the Respondent, has fulfilled the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
C. Registered and Used in Bad FaithUnder the circumstances of this case, including the composition of the disputed domain name and reputation of the Complainant’s trademark, it can be inferred that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark when registering the disputed domain name.
The evidence and allegations submitted by the Complainant support a finding that the Respondent was engaged in an attempt to pass himself off as the Complainant by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of his website and to attract Internet users to his website for his own commercial gain. The Respondent therefore used the disputed domain name in bad faith (see Claudie Pierlot v. Yinglong Ma,WIPO Case No. D2018-2466). The fact that the website at the disputed domain name has been deactivated in the meantime does not prevent a finding of bad faith.
Accordingly, the Complainant has also fulfilled paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
7. DecisionFor the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name
Tobias Zuberbühler
Sole Panelist
Date: November 12, 2021