Onlyfansgrls.com

The timeline behind onlyfansgrls.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. biilru, biilru Case No. D2025-4039 1. The Parties The Complainant is Fenix International Limited c/o Walters Law Group, United States of America. The Respondent is biilru, biilru, Russian Federation. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <onlyfansgrls.com> is registered with Global Domain Group LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 2, 2025. On October 3, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 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) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on October 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 October 6, 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 October 7, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 27, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 28, 2025. The Center appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm as the sole panelist in this matter on October 31, 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. page 2 4. Factual Background The Complainant operates the website located at the domain <onlyfans.com>, which it has used for several years in connection with operating a social media platform that enables users to post and subscribe to audiovisual content on the World Wide Web. The Complainant registered its domain name on January 29, 2013, and commenced its commercial operations by July 4, 2016. As of 2025, the Complainant’s website ranks among the most popular websites in the world, with more than 305 million registered users. The Complainant owns a portfolio of active trademark registrations worldwide for the ONLYFANS word and design marks, as well as the ONLYFANS.COM mark, registered with the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (e.g., Reg. No. EU017912377 for the mark ONLYFANS registered on January 9, 2019), the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) (e.g., Reg. No. UK00917912377 for the mark ONLYFANS), the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) (e.g., Reg. No. 5,769,268 for the mark ONLYFANS.COM), and WIPO, with extensions to numerous national registrations in multiple classes, including 9, 35, 38, 41, and 42. The Complainant’s earliest registered rights were established on June 5, 2018, and its trademark rights have been recognized in over one hundred and fifty decisions under the UDRP. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on May 2, 2025. The disputed domain name resolves to a website that replicates the Complainant’s official website, appearing nearly identical to the Complainant’s home page, and even displaying a copyright notice containing the Complainant’s mark. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the ONLYFANS and ONLYFANS.COM marks, which the Complainant owns and incorporates into its domain name. The Complainant asserts that its ONLYFANS trademark is globally well known, as evidenced by the fact that, in 2025, the Complainant’s website ranks among the most popular websites in the world, with more than 305 million registered users. The Complainant further alleges that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, which is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s well-known trademarks ONLYFANS and ONLYFANS.COM. The Complainant contends that the Respondent uses the disputed domain name to direct Internet users to a website that replicates the Complainant’s website, purportedly offering unlawful services by engaging in phishing activities intended to obtain personal information from deceived users. The website located at the disputed domain name appears almost identical to the Complainant’s home page, and the Respondent is using this imitation site to mislead Internet users. The Complainant also alleges that it has not granted the Respondent any permission, authorization, or license to obtain or post such materials, and that there is no commercial relationship between the parties. The Complainant alleges that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Complainant contends that there is no legitimate reason for the Respondent to have registered the disputed domain name, and that it is more probable than not that the Respondent was fully aware of the Complainant and its ONLYFANS mark at the time of registration, as the website features a logo similar to the Complainant’s ONLYFANS logo. The disputed domain name directs Internet users to a counterfeit version of the Complainant’s official website. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s cease-and-desist letter. The Respondent also hid from the public behind a WhoIs privacy wall. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name with the intent to divert Internet traffic from the Complainant’s legitimate website to a fraudulent imitation site designed to harvest user information from individuals attempting to log in to the Complainant’s genuine platform. Bad faith registration and use are established where the website at the disputed domain name includes a copyright statement containing the Complainant’s mark. page 3 B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has proven that it owns rights in the ONLYFANS word and design marks, as well as the ONLYFANS.COM mark, in various jurisdictions around the world as previously identified in the “Factual Background”. “Where the complainant holds a nationally or regionally registered trademark or service mark, this prima facie satisfies the threshold requirement of having trademark rights for purposes of standing to file a UDRP case.” See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. The ONLYFANS.COM trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name wholly incorporates the Complainant’s ONLYFANS.COM trademark, adding only the misspelled word “girl”. The Panel finds that such an addition of a misspelled term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for purposes of the Policy, see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark for purposes of the Policy. The Complainant has established the first element of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests 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. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1. The Complainant has shown that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. ONLYFANS is a distinctive term in relation to the goods and services covered by the Complainant’s trademark registrations. Relevant information, such as WhoIs data, may serve as evidence to determine whether a respondent is or is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy paragraph 4(c)(ii). The Panel notes that the unmasked WhoIs information lists “biilru, biilru” as the registrant, and there is no evidence in the record indicating that the Respondent was authorized to use the mark. Furthermore, there is no evidence of prior use of the ONLYFANS name by the Respondent. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy paragraph 4(c)(ii). See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.3. Upon comparing the disputed domain name’s resolving website with that of the Complainant, the Panel finds that the website located at the disputed domain name appears almost identical to the Complainant’s home page, displaying a logo that closely resembles the Complainant’s ONLYFANS logo. The Respondent uses this imitation website to mislead Internet users and to create a false impression of affiliation or authorization. The Respondent uses the disputed domain name to prominently display the Complainant’s registered trademark and to offer the Complainant’s services despite having no right to do so. The Panel finds that such conduct does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See WIPO Overview 3.0, sections 2.2 and 2.4. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has failed to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not presented any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, whether as enumerated under the Policy or otherwise. The Panel therefore concludes that 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. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides a non-exhaustive list of circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, although other circumstances may also be relevant in determining whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1. In the present case, the Panel finds that the evidence demonstrates that the Respondent registered and has used the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Panel infers, from the manner in which the Respondent used the disputed domain name to impersonate the Complainant, as well as from the notoriety of the Complainant’s mark, that the Respondent had knowledge of the Complainant’s rights in the ONLYFANS mark at the time of registration, and therefore finds that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.2. The Panel also finds that the Respondent intentionally sought to exploit the Complainant’s intellectual property rights for commercial gain by using the ONLYFANS name, logo, and trademark to attract Internet users through a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s well-known mark and brand. The Panel finds that such conduct falls within Policy paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv), as the Respondent’s actions were intended to obtain commercial benefits, disrupt the Complainant’s business, and mislead consumers into believing that the Respondent’s website is affiliated with or endorsed by the Complainant. See WIPO Overview 3.0, sections 3.1.3 and 3.1.4. Accordingly, the Panel concludes that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith, and 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 <onlyfansgrls.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Ho-Hyun Nahm/ Ho-Hyun Nahm Sole Panelist Date: November 3, 2025

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