Westmore · UDRP DecisionOnlyfansgg.com
The Panel ordered cancellation of <onlyfansgg.com>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ONLYFANS mark, held that the Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests, and concluded that the domain was registered and used in bad faith to attract users for commercial gain through unauthorized account-selling services and a website presenting indicia associated with the Complainant.
The timeline behind onlyfansgg.com
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 onlyfansgg.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The decision illustrates a straightforward case in which a famous or reputed platform mark was wholly incorporated into a domain used for unauthorized commercial services directly tied to the trademark owner’s platform. The combination of full-mark incorporation, account sales, and copied logo imagery supported findings across all three UDRP elements, while later website deactivation did not cure the bad-faith use.
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 / drake b Case No. D2021-3286 1. The Parties 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 Registrar The disputed domain name <onlyfansgg.com> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History 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 Background The 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 <onlyfans.com> under which the official website of the Complainant is available. The Complainant advertises and sells its services through its <onlyfans.com> 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. Complainant The Complainant alleges that it has satisfied all elements of the Policy, paragraph 4. The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be cancelled. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Based 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 Similar The 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 Interests There 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 Faith Under 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. 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 <onlyfansgg.com> be cancelled. Tobias Zuberbühler Sole Panelist Date: November 12, 2021
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around onlyfansgg.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.