Westmore · UDRP DecisionOnlyfanspremium.site
The Panel ordered transfer of <onlyfanspremium.site>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ONLYFANS trademark because it incorporated the mark with the descriptive term “premium”; found no evidence rebutting the Complainant’s prima facie case on rights or legitimate interests; and found bad-faith registration and use under paragraph 4(b)(iv) based on the use of the Complainant’s logo, a purported “premium” membership offer, a false impression of affiliation or sponsorship, and attempted diversion of web traffic.
The timeline behind onlyfanspremium.site
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 onlyfanspremium.site — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The decision illustrates a straightforward impersonation-based application of the UDRP where a domain combines an entire trademark with a service-enhancing term and the associated website reinforces the misleading association through the trademark owner’s logo and a purported premium offering. The case also shows that a panel may proceed in English despite a Russian-language registration agreement when bilingual notice is provided, the domain and website use English, and the respondent does not object.
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. Prc Maru Case No. D2021-3255 1. The Parties The Complainant is Fenix International Limited c/o Walters Law Group, United States of America (“United States”). The Respondent is Prc Maru, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <onlyfanspremium.site> is registered with Beget LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 30, 2021. On October 1, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 4, 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 8, 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 8, 2021. The Registrar confirmed that the language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Russian. On October 8, 2021, the Center sent an email communication to the Parties in both English and Russian regarding the language of the proceeding. The Complainant requested that English be the language of the proceeding on October 8, 2021. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding. 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”). Given the provided submissions and circumstances of this case, the Center decided to: 1) accept the Complaint as filed in English; 2) accept a Response in either English or Russian; 3) appoint a Panel familiar with both languages mentioned above, if available. In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint in both English and Russian, and the proceedings commenced on October 22, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 11, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 15, 2021. The Center appointed Clark W. Lackert as the sole panelist in this matter on December 2, 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 owns and operates the website located at the domain name <onlyfans.com> and has used its domain name for several years 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. In providing its services, the Complainant has made extensive use of the ONLYFANS trademark, and has registered this trademark in the European Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States. In addition to its registered trademark rights, the Complainant also owns common law rights in the ONLYFANS trademark through use. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on July 29, 2021, after the Complainant’s use and registrations for its trademark. The disputed domain name resolves to active website displaying Complainant’s trademark and logo, where the Respondent attempted to pass itself off as a website of the Complainant. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1. Procedural Issue – Language of the Proceedings The Panel supports the finding of the Center that in view of all the facts, this case should follow the language procedures provided by the Center. According to the information provided by the Registrar, the language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain name is Russian. Under paragraph 11 of the Rules, unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the registration agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding. The Complainant submitted its Complaint in English, and requests the proceeding to be held in English. The Complainant argues that the Respondent conducts business on the website located at the disputed domain name in English and the disputed domain name includes the English words “only, “fans”, “premium”, and “site”. The Center has sent all its email communications to the Respondent in both English and Russian, and has invited the Respondent to express its views on the language of the proceeding. The Respondent has not responded to this invitation and has thus not objected to the Complainant’s request that the proceedings be held in English. The Panelist finds in favor of the Complainant based upon the reasons set forth above.. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has presented evidence of established rights in its trademarks, and these rights precede the registration of the disputed domain name by several years. A comparison of the Complainant’s ONLYFANS trademark and the disputed domain name <onlyfanspremium.site> verifies that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. “onlyfanspremium” merely duplicates the ONLYFANS trademark, with an added descriptive term “premium” to indicate a higher class of service. The ONLYFANS trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name and the addition of the term “premium” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element. Concerning the word “premium”, see, e.g ., RapidShare AG, Christian Schmid v. WhoisGuard, Hyperweb / Sunny Lal , WIPO Case No. D2010- 0889 (transferring <free-rapidshare-premium-accounts.com> to owner of RAPID SHARE trademark). The TLD portion of the disputed domain name ( i.e. , “.site”) is merely a technical component that is necessary to register a domain name and does not add distinction. See WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.11.1. Concerning the TLD “.site” per se , see, e.g ., Realm Entertainment Limited v. Ferhat Aydin , WIPO Case No. D2017-1258 (transferring <bets10.site> to owner of BETS10 trademark>). The requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy have been satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests There is no evidence in the record to rebut the prima facie case presented by the Complainant’s allegations that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interests in and to the disputed domain name. The requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy have been satisfied. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith As evidence of bad faith, the Respondent’s fraudulently used the same logo as the Complainant’s on its website at the time of registration of the domain name. This is evidence of bad faith. See, e.g ., Fenix International Limited v. Private Whois, Knock Knock WHOIS Not There, LLC / Alberto Sainz , WIPO Case No. D2021-0864 , wherein the panel noted: “Respondent’s website contains numerous indicia of fraudulent activity, including unauthorized use of Complainant’s device mark and formatting that imitates Complainant’s business in colors, layout and content.” In addition, the fraudulent promise by Respondent to obtain for the user of the website a “premium” membership in the Complainant’s services creates a false impression of affiliation or sponsorship. The panel in a similar case, Fenix International Limited v. WhoisGuard Protected, see , e.g., WhoisGuard, Inc. / Yazid Laiss / Stive Belb / Ahmed Bel Bouahli , WIPO Case No. D2021-0152 noted: “In the view of the Panel, the remaining four disputed domain names, <onlyfansaccount.xyz>, <onlyfansplus.xyz>, <onlyfans-plus.club> and <onlyfanz.xyz> are inherently misleading as clearly implying a legitimate association or connection with the Complainant.” Finally, the use of the word “premium” in the disputed domain name coupled with the Complainant’s trademark enhances not reduces confusion . See , e.g., Fenix International Limited v. Datos privados, WIPO Case No. D2021-1306 , wherein the panel observed that the addition of the word “filtrados” (“filtered” in English) suggested a false opportunity to access filtered information. The Panel, therefore, finds that paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy has been satisfied for proving bad faith use and registration. These factors, among others, clearly show an attempt to divert web traffic away from the legitimate website. The requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy have been satisfied. 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 <onlyfanspremium.site> be transferred to the Complainant. Clark W. Lackert Sole Panelist Date: December 15, 2021
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around onlyfanspremium.site
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.