Westmore · UDRP DecisionOnlyfanq.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <onlyfanq.com>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ONLY FANS mark because it was an obvious misspelling, that the Respondent had not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing of no rights or legitimate interests, and that redirecting users to competing adult entertainment services constituted bad-faith registration and use for presumed commercial gain.
The timeline behind onlyfanq.com
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
The decision illustrates a straightforward typosquatting pattern in which a one-character variation of a registered mark redirected users to directly competing services. The combination of an obvious misspelling, competitive use, prior trademark rights, lack of authorization, and an unrebutted complaint supported all three UDRP elements.
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Fenix International Limited c/o Walters Law Group v. PrivacyGuardian.org. / NameSilo, LLC, Domain Administrator Case No. D2021-0353 1. The Parties Complainant is Fenix International Limited c/o Walters Law Group, United States of America (“United States” or “U.S.”). Respondent is PrivacyGuardian.org., United States / NameSilo, LLC, Domain Administrator, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <onlyfanq.com> is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 5, 2021. On February 5, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 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 Complainant on February 8, 2021, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on February 10, 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 17, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 9, 2021. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on March 10, 2021. The Center appointed Lorelei Ritchie as the sole panelist in this matter on March 15, 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 Complainant owns and operates <onlyfans.com>, via a website and social media platform. Complainant has various trademark registrations for its ONLY FANS mark in connection with subscription services, including transmission of videos and entertainment services. These include U.S. Registration No. 5,769,267 (registered June 4, 2019); and European Union Registration No. 017912377 (registered January 9, 2019). The disputed domain name <onlyfanq.com> was registered on December 11, 2020. The URL associated with the disputed domain name redirects to a webpage offering adult entertainment services that compete with those offered by Complainant. Respondent has no affiliation with Complainant, nor any license to use its marks. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that (i) the disputed domain name <onlyfanq.com> is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks, (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names; and (iii) Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith. Specifically, Complainant contends that it owns the ONLY FANS mark, which it uses in its website and social media platforms. Complainant further contends that “www.onlyfans.com” is one of the most popular websites in the world in 2021. Complainant contends that Respondent has registered a deliberate misspelling of Complainant’s well-known ONLY FANS mark, in order to divert potential consumers looking for Complainant and Complainant’s services. Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name, and rather has registered and is using it in bad faith, having simply acquired the disputed domain name for Respondent’s own commercial gain. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel must first determine whether the disputed domain name <onlyfanq.com> is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainants has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. The Panel finds that it is. The disputed domain name contains an obvious misspelling of Complainant’s well-known ONLY FANS mark. This indicates a practice commonly known as typosquatting where a domain name registrant deliberately registers common misspellings of a well-known mark in order to divert consumer traffic. Other UDRP panels have routinely found typosquatted domain names like these to be “confusingly similar” for purposes of a finding under the UDRP. See Edmonds.com, Inc. v. Yingkun Guo, dba This domain name is 4 sale, WIPO Case No. D2006-0694 (<edunds.com>); Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. John Zuccarini, Cupcake City and Cupcake Patrol, WIPO Case No. D2001-0489 (<disneychanel.com>, <disneywolrd.com>, <walddisney.com>); see also Credit Karma, Inc. v. Domain Admin, WhoIs Privacy Corp. , WIPO Case No. D2017-0194 (<credidkarma.com>). The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph (4)(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Panel next considers whether Complainant has shown that Respondent has no “rights or legitimate interest” as must be proven to succeed in a UDRP dispute. Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy gives examples that might show rights or legitimate interests in a domain name. These examples include: (i) use of the domain name “in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services”; (ii) demonstration that respondent has been “commonly known by the domain name”; or (iii) “legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue”. No evidence has been presented to the Panel that might support a claim of Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and Respondent has no license from, or other affiliation with, Complainant. Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has provided prima facie evidence of Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy which Respondent has not rebutted. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith There are several ways that a complainant can demonstrate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith. For example, paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy states that bad faith can be shown where “by using the domain name [respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [respondent’s] website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [respondent’s] website or location or of a product or service on [the] website or location”. As noted in Section 4 of this Panel’s decision, the disputed domain name has been used to redirect to a webpage offering adult entertainment services that compete with those offered by Complainant. Hence, Respondent is trading on the goodwill of Complainant’s trademarks to attract Internet users, presumably for Respondent’s own commercial gain. The disputed domain name incorporates an obvious misspelling of Complainant’s well-known ONLY FANS mark, and the Panel finds sufficient evidence that Respondent registered and has used the disputed domain name with knowledge of Complainant’s prior rights in the mark. See , Fenix International Limited v. Registration Private, Domains by Proxy, LLC/Name Redacted , WIPO Case No. D2020-1517 (transferring <onlyfans.tv> and <onlyfanstv.com>); Fenix International Limited v. Perfect Privacy, LLC, Chad Moston, Speedplexer , WIPO Case No. D2020-1162 (transferring <oniyfans.com>); Fenix International Limited v. c/o WhoisPrivacy.com, Tulip Trading Company, Tulip Trading Company Limited, WIPO Case No. DCO2020-0038 . (transferring <onlyfans.co>) Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph (4)(a)(iii) 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 name <onlyfanq.com> be transferred to Complainant. Lorelei Ritchie Sole Panelist Date: March 24, 2021
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around onlyfanq.com
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
The decision is only the beginning.
You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore UDRP records draw on WIPO-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.