Westmore · UDRP DecisionOnlyfansleaked.biz
The Panel ordered cancellation of <onlyfansleaked.biz>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the Complainant's ONLYFANS trademark because it incorporated the mark with the dictionary term “leaked.” The Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests because the competing website reproduced content from the Complainant's website without authorization. Bad faith was established because the domain's wording and website content demonstrated awareness and targeting of the Complainant, disruption of its business, and an intentional attempt to attract Internet users through confusion.
The timeline behind onlyfansleaked.biz
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
Westmore reconstructs the full history behind onlyfansleaked.biz — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The decision illustrates how a domain combining a trademark with a term suggesting unauthorized disclosure can provide evidence beyond ordinary confusing similarity. Here, “leaked” not only failed to distinguish the domain but also helped demonstrate deliberate targeting when considered with the reproduced trademark and content on the associated competing website.
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 v. Withheld for Privacy Purposes, Privacy Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Marius Pop Case No. D2021-2715 1. The Parties The Complainant is Fenix International Limited c/o Walters Law Group, United States of America (the “United States”). The Respondent is Withheld for Privacy Purposes, Privacy Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf, Iceland / Marius Pop, Romania. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <onlyfansleaked.biz> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 19, 2021. On August 19, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 19, 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 August 29, 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 August 30, 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 August 31, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 20, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 24, 2021. The Center appointed Andrea Mondini as the sole panelist in this matter on September 30, 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 is a company that offers a content subscription website at “www.onlyfans.com”, in which creators charge for access to their respective profiles. The trademark ONLYFANS was registered by the Complainant in several jurisdictions, including in the United States (registration number 5,769,267, registered on June 4, 2019) and in the European Union (European Union Trademark numbers EU017946559 and EU017912377, both registered on January 9, 2019). The Complainant’s main domain name <onlyfans.com> was registered on January 29, 2013. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name <onlyfansleaked.biz> on April 7, 2021. The disputed domain name resolves to a webpage offering adult entertainment content and presenting contents reproduced from the Complainant’s official website, together with advertisement of other competing websites. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant makes the following contentions: - The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant’s website is one of the most popular websites in the world and has become a prime target for cyber squatters wishing to profit from the goodwill that the Complainant created in the ONLYFANS mark. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark because the additional descriptive term “leaked” does nothing to confer legitimate rights or interests in the disputed domain name. Finally, the use of “.biz” as a generic Top-level-Domain (“gTLD”) do not serve to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s mark. - The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Registration and use of a domain name in bad faith cannot establish rights or legitimate interests. Using a disputed domain name to host commercial websites that advertise goods and services for sale in direct competition with the trademark owner does not give rise to legitimate rights or interests. In the present case, no evidence indicates that the Respondent is known by the disputed domain name. Moreover, providing content uploaded by the Complainant’s users to the Complainant’s website on the Respondent’s website – free of charge – does not amount to a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name under the Policy. - The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Respondent was likely aware of the Complainant’s trademark rights when it registered the disputed domain name and began operating a website that provides services in direct competition with the Complainant. The fact that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s internationally well-known marks at the time of registration is evidence of bad faith registration. Because the Respondent copied content from the Complainant’s website, it is clear that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name to target the Complainant’s mark ONLYFANS. The Respondent hid his/her identity from the public behind a WhoIs privacy wall. The Respondent’s failure to respond to a cease-and-desist letter sent by the Complainant is further evidence of bad faith. The Respondent clearly registered the disputed domain name to divert Internet traffic from the Complainant’s site to a website offering adult entertainment content in direct competition with the Complainant’s website. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that in order to be entitled to a transfer of the disputed domain name, a complainant shall prove the following three elements: (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 Annex E to the Complaint shows trademark registrations for ONLYFANS obtained by the Complainant as early as in 2019. The disputed domain name differs from the Complainant’s trademark ONLYFANS merely by the addition of the word “leaked” and of the gTLD “.biz”. Previous UDRP panels have consistently found that the addition of dictionary terms in a domain name (such as “leaked”) does not 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. It is also well established that a gTLD suffix such as “.biz” is typically irrelevant when determining whether a domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark. As a result, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, and that the Complainant has satisfied the first element of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides some examples without limitation of how a respondent can demonstrate a right or legitimate interest in a domain name: (i) before receiving any notice of the dispute, the respondent used or made demonstrable preparations to use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) the respondent has been commonly known by the domain name; or (iii) the respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark at issue. Based on the Respondent’s default and on the prima facie case established by the Complainant that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the Panel finds that the above circumstances are not present in this particular case and that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant has not licensed or authorized the usage of its trademarks to the Respondent, and it does not appear from the present record that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Panel also notes that the present record provides no evidence to demonstrate the Respondent’s intent to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Indeed, the disputed domain name resolves to a website offering adult entertainment content in competition with the Complainant, reproducing content previously published at the Complainant’s website without authorization, which are offered free of charge by the Respondent, without remunerating the Complainant or the respective creators. Consequently, the Panel is satisfied that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and the Complainant has proven the second element of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy states that the following circumstances in particular, but without limitation, shall be evidence of registration and use of a domain name in bad faith: (i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of the complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) the respondent registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its 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 its website or location or of a product or service on its website or location. When the disputed domain name was registered, the Complainant’s ONLYFANS trademark was already undoubtedly connected with the Complainant’s famous website and online services. The disputed domain name encompasses the trademark ONLYFANS, together with the verb “leaked”. The Panel considers that the addition of such term even affirms that the Respondent had the Complainant in mind in the present case, as it indicates that the website at the disputed domain name offers contents leaked from the Complainant’s website. Also, the website at the disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant’s trademark and contents. Such circumstances lead the Panel to conclude that the Respondent was clearly aware of the Complainant’s trademark at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name, as well as that the adoption of the expression “onlyfansleaked” was not a coincidence. Furthermore, the mere reproduction of the Complainant’s mark and contents to offer similar and/or competing services is further evidence to suggest that the Respondent (i) registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the Complainant’s business, offering its paid contents free of charge, and (ii) has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s online services. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, and the Complainant has also satisfied the third element 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 <onlyfansleaked.biz> be cancelled. Andrea Mondini Sole Panelist Date: October 14, 2021
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around onlyfansleaked.biz
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.