Basedonlyfans.lol

The timeline behind basedonlyfans.lol

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 AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Fenix International Limited v. Vexen MGMT Case No. D2025-0761 1. The Parties The Complainant is Fenix International Limited c/o Walters Law Group, United States of America (“United States”). The Respondent is Vexen MGMT, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <basedonlyfans.lol> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 24, 2025. On February 25, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 26, 2025, 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 (Redacted for Privacy, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 28, 2025, 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 February 28, 2025. 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 March 4, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 24, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 25, 2025. page 2 The Center appointed Ik-Hyun Seo as the sole panelist in this matter on April 1, 2025. 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 was founded in 2016 and operates a platform providing content subscription service at the domain name <onlyfans.com>, which is one of the most popular social media platforms with more than 305 million registered users. The platform is widely known for being popular with adult content. The Complainant has trademark registrations for the ONLYFANS mark around the world, including European Union Trademark Registration Number 017912377 registered on January 9, 2019, United Kingdom Trademark Registration Number UK00917912377 registered on January 9, 2019, and United States Trademark Registration Number 5769267 registered on June 4, 2019. The Respondent appears to be an entity with an address in the United States. The disputed domain name was registered on June 2, 2024 and resolves to a website advertising a cryptocurrency by the name of “$ONLYFANS” and encouraging users “Join us in reclaiming ‘fan’ from the clutches of adult entertainment, and invest in a meme coin that blows back with a vengeance”. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the marks in which the Complainant has rights since the disputed domain name consists of the term “onlyfans” which is identical to the Complainant’s mark, and the descriptive term “based” does nothing to avoid confusing similarity. The Complainant also contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and confirms that it has not authorized or licensed rights to the Respondent in any respect. The Complainant further contends that there is no evidence of the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in providing any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor any evidence that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent. Finally, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered long after the Complainant acquired fame and rights in the ONLYFANS mark and that it is difficult to conceive of any legitimate reason for the Respondent to have acquired the disputed domain name. The Complainant points out that the Respondent is offering a cryptocurrency at the website linked to the disputed domain name called “$ONLYFANS” and that this is further evidence of that the Respondent knew of the Complainant when registering the disputed domain name. The Complainant also contends that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to promote questionable cryptocurrency as well as the Respondent’s lack of response to the Complainant’s letter and use of a privacy shield to hide its identity all constitute bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. page 3 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0 ”), section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.2.1. The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.7. Although the addition of other term – here, “based” – may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.8. The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. Moreover, “UDRP panels have found that domain names identical to a complainant’s trademark carry a high risk of implied affiliation. Even where a domain name consists of a trademark plus an additional term (at the second- or top-level), UDRP panels have largely held that such composition cannot constitute fair use if it effectively impersonates or suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark owner.” WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 2.5.1. Here, the descriptive term “based” is added before the ONLYFANS mark which may mislead Internet users into believing that the website at the disputed domain name is related to and/or operated by the Complainant, contrary to the fact. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. page 4 C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name incorporating the Complainant’s prior registered ONLYFANS mark to advertise a cryptocurrency called “$ONLYFANS”, which shows the Respondent’s intention to attract Internet users to its website based on the fame of the Complainant’s mark, therefore, it is most likely that the Respondent targeted the Complainant when registered the disputed domain name. And based on the manner of use, i.e., the use of the disputed domain name for a website advertising the cryptocurrency with a sign of “BUY” button, the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark, which constitutes bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established 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 <basedonlyfans.lol> be transferred to the Complainant. /Ik-Hyun Seo/ Ik-Hyun Seo Sole Panelist Date: April 15, 2025

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