Onlyfansvideos.com

The timeline behind onlyfansvideos.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

ARBITRATION AN D MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Fenix International Limited c/o Walters Law Group v. Privacy Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Vladik Altshuler Case No. D2022-0139 1. The Parties The Complainant is Fenix International Limited c/o Walters Law Group, United States of America (“United States”), represented internally. The Respondent is Privacy Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf, Iceland / Vladik Altshuler, Israel. 2. The Domain Name and Reg istr a r The disputed domain name <onlyfansvideos.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 14, 2022. On January 17, 2022, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On January 17, 2022, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 19, 2022, 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 January 19, 2022. 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 January 31, 2022. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 20, 2022. The Respondent did not send a formal response, but an informal communication was received by the Center on January 20, 2022, from an email allegedly associated with the Respondent. Pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Rules, the Center notified the page 2 Parties of the commencement of the panel appointment process on February 22, 2022. The Center appointed Mathias Lilleengen as the sole panelist in this matter on March 1, 2022. 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 “www.onlyfans.com”. The Complainant has used it for several years as a social media platform that allows users to post and subscribe to audiovisual content. In 2022, “www.onlyfans.com” is one of the most popular websites in the world, with more than 180 million registered users. According to Alexa Internet, it is the world’s 428th most popular website. The Complainant owns trademark registrations in multiple jurisdictions for the ONLYFANS word and design mark, such as European Union Trade Mark No. EU017912377, registered on January 9, 2019; and European Union Trade Mark No. EU017946559, registered on January 9, 2019; and United Kingdom Trade Mark No. UK00917912377, registered on January 9, 2019; and United Kingdom Trade Mark No. UK00917946559, registered on January 9, 2019. The Complainant’s domain name <onlyfans.com> was registered on January 29, 2013. All trademarks and the domain name are registered before the Domain Name. The Domain Name was registered on May 14, 2020. The Complainant has documented that the Domain Name at the time of filing the Complaint resolved to a website that offers adult entertainment services (including content pirated from the Complainant’s users). At the time of the decision, t he Domain Name resolved to an error page. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant provides evidence of trademark registrations, and argues that it has unregistered common law rights as it has been recognized in previous UDRP decisions. The Complainant submits that the Domain Name is legally identical or at very least confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The additional element “videos” does nothing to avoid confusing similarity. The Complainant asserts that it has no association with the Respondent and has never authorized or licensed the Respondent to use its trademark. There is no evidence indicating that the Respondent has been commonly known by the Domain Name. Moreover, the Respondent’s use is and cannot be a bona f ide offering of goods or services, as the Respondent offers adult entertainment services, including content pirated from the Complainant’s users. The Complainant submits that the Respondent was or should have been aware of the Complainant prior to registering the Domain Name. The fact that the Complainant’s trademark rights predate the Respondent’s registration of the Domain Name, and the Respondent’s unauthorized use of the Domain Name, prove that the Respondent knew of the Complainant and its business. The Complainant argues that the Respondent’s use of the Domain Name gives the false impression that the Domain Name is associated with and/or endorsed by the Complainant. The Respondent misleadingly diverts Internet traffic from the Complainant’s website. The Respondent operates a website that provides products and services in direct competition with the Complainant, included material pirated from the Complainant’s users. Moreover, the Respondent has not responded to the Complainant’s cease-and-desis t letter. page 3 B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. On January 20, 2022, an email was received from an address used by the Complainant in its cease-and-desist letter, presumably connected to the Respondent, in which the sender expressed confusion regarding the nature of the dispute and contested the physical address disclosed by the Registrar. This email address was included for purposes of the commencement of the administrative proceeding, through which the sender would receive a copy of the Complaint, however no further email communications were received. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has established that it has rights in the trademark ONLYFANS. The test for confusing similarity involves a comparison between the trademark and the Domain Name. The Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety with the additional element “videos”. The addition does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the trademark. For the purpose of assessing under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Panel may ignore the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0 ”), section 1.11.1. The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Le gitimate Inte rests The Complainant has made unrebutted assertions that it has not granted any authorization to the Respondent to register a domain name containing the Complainant’s trademark or otherwise make use of the Complainant’s mark. There is no evidence that the Respondent has registered the Domain Name as a trademark or acquired unregistered rights. The Respondent has not offered any explanation as to the registration of the Domain Name, and therefore not provided any evidence of good faith use. The Panel agrees with the Complainant that the Respondent’s use of the Domain Name is not bona fide offering of goods or services, but rather evidence of bad faith, see below. The Domain Name consists of the Complainant’s trademark plus an additional term that is descriptive of the services provided by the Complainant, which carries a risk of implied affiliation to the Complainant, contrary to the fact, which cannot constitute fair use. See WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 2.5.1. The affiliation is exacerbated by the alleged pirated content found at the Domain Name, which directly competes with that provided by the Complainant, and the failure of the Domain Name to include any clarifying statement at to its relation, or lack thereof, to the Complainant. As further elucidated below and pursuant to section 2.15 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, the use of the Domain Name is abusive of the Complainant’s trademark rights. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel finds it probable that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant when the Respondent registered the Domain Name. The Complainant’s trademarks predate the registration of the Domain Name, and the Respondent’s use of the Domain Name indicates that the Respondent knew of the Complainant when the Respondent registered the Domain Name. page 4 The Respondent’s use of the Domain Name gives the misleading impression that the Domain Name is associated with or endorsed by the Complainant. The Respondent operates a website at the Domain Name in direct competition with the Complainant, and the website includes material pirated from the Complainant’s users. Additionally, the Panel points out that the Domain Name wholly incorporates the Complainant’s trademark with a term related to the Complainant’s area of commercial activity. The Respondent has clearly tried to attract Internets users to its website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark, see WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 3.1. The Respondent has not provided any evidence of actual or contemplated good faith use and has not responded to the Complainant’s cease-and-desist letter or the Complaint. For the reasons set out above, the Panel concludes that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith, within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) 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 Domain Name <onlyfansvideos.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Mathias Lilleengen/ Mathias Lilleengen Sole Panelist Date: March 9, 2022

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.