Onlyfansapp.vip

The timeline behind onlyfansapp.vip

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. short 888 Case No. D2025-3443 1. The Parties Complainant is Fenix International Limited c/o Walters Law Group, United States of America (“United States”). Respondent is short 888, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <onlyfansapp.vip> is registered with Dynadot Inc (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 26, 2025. On August 27, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 28, 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, Super Privacy Service LTD) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on August 29, 2025, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on August 29, 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 3, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 23, 2025. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on September 24, 2025. page 2 The Center appointed Timothy D. Casey as the sole panelist in this matter on September 30, 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 Complainant owns and operates a website located at <onlyfans.com> that provides a social medial platform where users post and subscribe to audiovisual content. Complainant first began using ONLYFANS as a trademark for goods and services associated with the website as early as 2016, and owns at least the following registrations (the “ONLYFANS Marks”): Mark Jurisdiction Class(es) Registration No. Registration Date ONLYFANS United States 35 5,769,267 June 4, 2019 ONLYFANS United States 9, 35, 38, 41, and 42 6,253,455 January 26, 2021 ONLYFANS European Union 9, 35, 38, 41, and 42 017912377 January 9, 2019 The disputed domain name was registered on March 22, 2025. At the time of filing of the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to a website branded as “HolyFans” that provides a social medial platform where users post and subscribe to audiovisual content and which republishes content previously published at Complainant’s website. Complainant also provided evidence of a cease and desist letter sent to Respondent, via the Registrar, on May 27, 2025, to which there was no reply. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. Notably, Complainant contends that it has rights in the ONLYFANS Marks, at least as set forth above, and that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the ONLYFANS Marks because the ONLYFANS Marks are recognizable within the disputed domain name. Complainant notes that the disputed domain name adds the descriptive term “app” after the ONLYFANS Marks, which Complainant asserts does nothing to avoid confusing similarity. Complainant also notes that the use the Top-Level Domain “.vip” should be disregarded in the analysis under the first element of the Policy. Complainant contends Respondent should be considered to have no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant asserts Respondent has no connection or affiliation with Complainant, has not received authorization, license or consent to use the ONLYFANS Marks in any manner. Complainant asserts that no evidence indicates Respondent is known by the disputed domain name or that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant further contends that the use of the ONLYFANS Marks in the disputed domain name with an additional term cannot constitute fair use because the disputed domain name is used to impersonate or suggest sponsorship or endorsement by Complainant and to compete with Complainant. This implied affiliation is exacerbated by Respondent’s use of content on Respondent’s website that was taken from Complainant’s website. Complainant contends the disputed domain name should be considered to have been registered and used in bad faith because: (1) Respondent registered the disputed domain name long after Complainant established trademarks rights in the ONLYFANS Marks; (2) mere registration of the disputed domain name that is confusingly similar to a trademark having widespread commercial recognition by an unaffiliated entity creates a presumption of bad faith; (3) registration of the disputed domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark suggests Respondent was likely aware of the ONLYFANS Marks at the time of page 3 registration of the disputed domain name; (4) Respondent’s failure to respond to Complainant’s cease and desist letter, Respondent’s failure to participate in the present proceeding, and Respondent’s use of a privacy shield create an adverse inference of bad faith; and (5) by registering and using the disputed domain name as noted herein, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s ONLYFANS Marks as to the source, affiliation, or endorsement of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 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 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. 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 Panel finds the mark is recognizable 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 terms, here, “app,” 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 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 Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent has not rebutted 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. page 4 The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. 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 Respondent clearly knew of the ONLYFANS Marks prior to registration of the disputed domain name and then purposely used the disputed domain name to set up a website that would compete with Complainant’s website, including displaying content taken from Complainant’s website without authorization. That Respondent’s website operates under the name “HolyFans” does not change the fact that users must first get there through the disputed domain name (incorporating the ONLYFANS Marks and not “HolyFans”), which creates a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s ONLYFANS Marks as to the source, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website. The Panel finds that 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 <onlyfansapp.vip> be transferred to Complainant. /Timothy D. Casey/ Timothy D. Casey Sole Panelist Date: October 14, 2025

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