Unlockedonlyfans.com

The timeline behind unlockedonlyfans.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 AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Fenix International Limited v. Latina Teen Case No. D2025-3566 1. The Parties The Complainant is Fenix International Limited c/o Walters Law Group, United States of America. The Respondent is Latina Teen, Brazil. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <unlockedonlyfans.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 September 3, 2025. On September 4, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 5, 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 September 6, 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 September 7, 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 September 8, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 28, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 4, 2025. page 2 The Center appointed Petra Pecar as the sole panelist in this matter on October 9, 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 is Fenix International Limited, a United Kingdom based limited company established in 2016. The Complainant owns and operates a website at the domain name <onlyfans.com>, a subscription based social media platform that enables users to post and subscribe to audiovisual content. The Complainant is the owner of worldwide mark registrations protecting word ONLYFANS including the following: - International registration for word mark ONLYFANS No. 1507723 registered on November 2, 2019 for goods and services in Classes 9, 35, 38, 41 and 42, designated, among others, for Brazil; and - International registration for figurative mark “” No. 1509110 registered on November 2, 2019 for goods and services in Classes 9, 35, 38, 41 and 42, designated, among others, for Brazil. The Complainant operates the domain name <onlyfans.com>, registered on January 29, 2013. On May 29, 2025, the Complainant sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Respondent at the email address listed in the public WhoIs records, and to the Registrar’s abuse contact, demanding that the Respondent cease using the disputed domain name and effect its cancellation. The disputed domain name was registered on April 1, 2025, and at the time of the Complaint filing, it directed users to a commercial website that offers services in direct competition with the Complainant. The Respondent is located in Brazil. 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 it owns and operates the online platform at <onlyfans.com> and holds registered rights in the ONLYFANS marks across multiple jurisdictions, and that these earlier rights predate and are infringed by the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or at least confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ONLYFANS mark. The prefix descriptive term “unlocked” leaves the mark recognizable and does not avoid confusion. The Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) “.com” is a registration formality and has no source identifying function. By reproducing the Complainant’s ONLYFANS mark in full, the disputed domain name lacks distinctiveness and is likely to mislead users as to the source, affiliation, sponsorship, or endorsement. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has no affiliation with the Complainant, has received no authorization to use the Complainant’s marks, is not commonly known by those marks, and holds no trademark rights corresponding to the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name appropriates the Complainant’s mark together with the term “unlocked,” thereby creating a false impression of sponsorship or endorsement and misleading consumers. The associated website offers adult entertainment content in direct competition with the page 3 Complainant, including material advertised as copied from the Complainant’s users, which diverts traffic and negates any claim of a bona fide offering. The Respondent selected and uses the disputed domain name solely to trade on the Complainant’s brand recognition rather than for any legitimate purpose. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered after the Complainant’s marks’ registration and after the mark had acquired distinctiveness. By incorporating the mark together with the term “unlocked,” the disputed domain name increases the likelihood of confusion and suggests a connection or affiliation. The disputed domain name resolves to a commercial website offering competing adult- entertainment content, including allegedly pirated material, thereby diverting users for commercial gain. The Respondent failed to reply to a cease and desist letter and used a privacy service to conceal identity. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Even if the Respondent did not file a Response to the Complainant’s contentions, the Panel shall consider the issues present in the case based on the statements and documents submitted by the Complainant. “A Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable”, as indicated in paragraph 15(a) of the Rules. Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant is required to prove each of the following three elements: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used by the Respondent in bad faith. 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 the ONLYFANS 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 the descriptive term “unlocked” for platform accessibility 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. page 4 Furthermore, it is well accepted practice by UDRP panels that a gTLD, such as “.com”, is typically ignored when assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark (see section 1.11 of the WIPO Overview 3.0). For that reason, the Panel accepts not to take into consideration the gTLD “.com” when assessing confusing similarity of the disputed domain name. 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. According to the Complainant, the Respondent is not affiliated or connected with the Complainant in any manner, nor has the Complainant granted the Respondent any license or authorization to use or register a domain name incorporating the Complainant’s ONLYFANS marks, nor is the Respondent commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Respondent has also failed to respond to the Complaint, thereby failing to provide any information or factors that could potentially establish prior rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Furthermore, there is no evidence indicating that the Respondent has engaged in any legitimate or bona fide use of the disputed domain name, either for commercial or noncommercial purposes, as the disputed domain name, at the time the Complaint was filed, resolved to a commercial website, which includes material copied from the Complainant’s users, offering services in direct competition with the Complainant. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for impersonation can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1. Such use misleads users by falsely suggesting affiliation or endorsement and does not confer any rights or legitimate interests on the Respondent. 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 observes that the Respondent’s disputed domain name consists of a combination of the term “unlocked”, ONLYFANS mark and the gTLD “.com”. The inclusion of “unlocked” is descriptive of accessible content. The registration of the disputed domain name, which incorporates the page 5 Complainant’s ONLYFANS marks with the term “unlocked” indicates the Respondent’s awareness of the Complainant and its ONLYFANS marks. Regarding bad faith at the time of registration, the Panel finds that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s rights in the ONLYFANS marks when the disputed domain name was registered. The material on the disputed domain name was copied from the Complainant’s users and was designed to create a misleading association with the Complainant and its activities, with the Complainant’s mark predating the registration of the disputed domain name by approximately six years. Consequently, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. The Panel further notes that the disputed domain name has been used in a way that aims to create confusion and exploit the Complainant’s reputation. The associated website prominently displays the term “OnlyFans” and includes content copied from the Complainant’s users, which together reinforce the impression that the website is affiliated with or endorsed by the Complainant. Such use, which includes the impersonation of the Complainant to facilitate unauthorized access to and distribution of content, provides strong evidence of bad faith. The intentional attempt to deceive Internet users and damage the Complainant’s goodwill further supports the conclusion that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name with the purpose of gaining an unfair advantage by misleadingly associating it with the Complainant’s reputation and ONLYFANS marks. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for impersonation constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4. 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 <unlockedonlyfans.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Petra Pecar/ Petra Pecar Sole Panelist Date: October 23, 2025

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