Onlyfans9.com

The timeline behind onlyfans9.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 v. Barbara Smith Case No. D2025-4073 1. The Parties The Complainant is Fenix International Limited c/o Walters Law Group, United States of America (the “United States”). The Respondent is Barbara Smith, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <onlyf ans9.com> is registered with Gname.com Pte. Ltd. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 6, 2025. On October 7, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request f or registrar verif ication in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 8, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verif ication 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 8, 2025, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant f iled an amendment to the Complaint on October 8, 2025. The Center verif ied that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisf ied the f ormal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules f or Unif orm Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules f or Unif orm Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center f ormally notif ied the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 9, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date f or Response was October 29, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s def ault on October 31, 2025. Due to an administrative oversight, on November 7, 2025, the Center sent an email communication granting the Respondent a f ive- day period until November 12, 2025, to indicate whether it wished to participate in this proceeding. The Respondent did not f ile a Response. page 2 The Center appointed Dennis A. Foster as the sole panelist in this matter on November 17, 2025. The Panel f inds 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 registered the domain name <onlyfans.com> in 2013 and has since used that platf orm to allow users the ability to post and subscribe to audiovisual adult entertainment content over the Internet. The website attached to that domain name has more than 300 million users worldwide. In connection with the services that it of f ers, the Complainant has registered its ONLYFANS service mark with authorities in multiple jurisdictions, including the European Union Intellectual Property Of f ice, the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Of f ice, and the United States Patent and Trademark Of f ice (“USPTO”). The Complainant has registered the ONLYFANS.COM and ONLYFANS service marks with the USPTO at Registration No. 5,769,268 and 5,769,267 respectively; b oth registered on June 4, 2019, International Class 35 f or arranging subscriptions to the online publications of others. The Respondent owns the disputed domain name, <onlyfans9.com>, which was registered on May 15, 2025. Containing logos identical to those on the Complainant’s primary website, the website connected to the disputed domain name offers adult entertainment videos, photographs and images just as the Complainant does at its main website. The Complainant sent the Respondent a cease-and-desist email on July 22, 2025, but according to the Complaint the Respondent did not respond. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant - The disputed domain name, <onlyfans9.com>, is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s service marks, ONLYFANS and ONLYFANS.COM, which were registered and used extensively prior to the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name. The minor distinction between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s marks is the inclusion of the number “9” which is not meaningf ul in any way. - The Complainant has achieved global commercial success in a relatively short time and has not authorized or licensed the use of its marks by the Respondent in any manner. There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Moreover, the website attached to the disputed domain name contains logos identical to those used by the Complainant and presents adult pornographic material that competes directly with the Complainant’s offerings, all of which fails to provide the Respondent with rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. - Given the international recognition of the Complainant’s marks, it is clear that the Respondent’s registration of the confusingly similar disputed domain name was made in bad f aith. Furthermore, the Respondent’s f ailure to respond to the Complainant’s cease-and-desist letter provides still more evidence of that bad f aith. Also, the use of the disputed domain name to present commercial services competitive with the Complainant’s offerings is consistent with bad faith use of the disputed domain name as delineated under the Policy. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. page 3 6. Discussion and Findings Under Policy paragraphs 4(a)(i) - (iii), the Panel may f ind f or the Complainant and order a transf er of the disputed domain name, <onlyf ans9.com>, should the Complainant prove that: - The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and - The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and - The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad f aith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has provided pertinent evidence that it has registered its ONLYFANS.COM and ONLYFANS service marks with the USPTO, and thus the Panel f inds that the Complainant has satisf ied Policy paragraph 4(a)(i) with respect to these marks. See, WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.2.1; and MultiCare Health System v. Margo Sobol, WIPO Case No . D2012-2348 (“The Panel f inds that Complainant’s rights in its MULTICARE f amily of marks are established through its USPTO registrations for the purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(i) o f the Po licy.”). The Panel determines that the Complainant’s marks are recognizable within the disputed domain name. Since the addition of the number “9” is insignificant in this appraisal under the Policy, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark. See, WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8; and Fenix International Limited v. Withheld for Privacy Purposes, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Leon Key, WIPO Case No . D2021-3132. Accordingly, the Panel f inds that the Complainant has proved the f irst element of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Policy places on a complainant the burden of proving that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name, but given the dif f icult task of “proving a negative,” if a complainant makes out a prima facie case that a respondent lacks those rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production then shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating such rights or legitimate interests. See, WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1; and Stoxx AG v. 247 Holdings Group, WIPO Case No . D2012-1582 (“It is a consensus view under the UDRP that it is suf f icient f or the Complainant to make a prima f acie showing that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name in order to place the burden of production on the Respondent.”). Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s service mark and asserted clearly that it has not authorized or licensed the Respondent to use that mark in any capacity. Theref ore, the Panel f inds that a prima f acie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name has been established. Failing to file a Response, the Respondent has not directly rebutted the Complainant’s prima f acie showing, but the Panel will examine the record to determine whether such a rebuttal might still be in order. In doing so, the Panel will accept all reasonable and sustainable evidence presented in the Complaint as true. See, OSRAM GmbH. v. Mohammed Rafi/Domain Admin, Privacy Protection Service INC d/b/a PrivacyProtect.org, WIPO Case No . D2015-1149 (“The Respondent has not submitted a response to the Complaint, in the absence of which the Panel may accept all reasonable inferences and allegations in the Complaint as true.”). The Complainant has established that the disputed domain name is connected to a website that of f ers Internet users access to various adult entertainment material, which places it in competition with the offerings of the Complainant. Such use of the disputed domain name fails to constitute “a bona fide offering of goods page 4 or services” pursuant to Policy paragraph 4(c)(i). See, Fenix International Limited v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC. / Jason Douglas, WIPO Case No . D2021-0829 (“The Respondent’s use of the conf usingly similar Domain Name f or a website of f ering services in direct competition with the services of fered by the Complainant and its users does not amount to use f or a bona f ide of f ering of goods and services.”). Moreover, there is no reason for the Panel to believe that the Respondent, Barbara Smith, is commonly known as the disputed domain name, <onlyf ans9.com>, meaning that paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy is inapplicable as well. Finally, as the indisputable evidence supplied by the Complainant attests to the f act that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name f or commercial gain, the Panel f inds that Policy paragraph 4(c)(iii), calling for “a noncommercial or fair use” of the disputed domain name, also does not apply in this case. Theref ore, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has failed to rebut the Complainant’s prima f acie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. As a result, the Panel f inds that the Complainant has proved the second element of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy stipulates a certain, if non-exhaustive, circumstance by which a UDRP panel may f ind that a disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad f aith as f ollows: (iv) by using the domain name, [the respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, f or commercial gain, Internet users to [the respondent’s] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of conf usion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [the respondent’s] web site or location or of a product or service on [respondent’s] web site or location. In this case, the Panel has f ound that not only is the disputed domain name conf usingly similar to the Complainant’s duly registered service mark, but that the website attached to the disputed domain name is adorned with the same logos used by the Complainant at its primary website. Moreover, the Panel has determined that said website offers for sale adult entertainment content that is directly competitive with that of fered by the Complainant at its primary website. Consequently, the Panel f inds that the Respondent is attempting to attract, f or commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website by creating the likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Respondent’s website in violation of Policy paragraph 4(b)(iv). See, WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4; and Fenix International Limited v. Domain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org / Kelly Smit, onlyfansleak and Withheld for Privacy Purposes, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Robert Scean, WIPO Case No . D2021-2706 (“...the Domain Names were used to create the Websites, of fering similar services to those of Complainant [...] The Domain Names operated therefore by intentionally creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s trademark and business as to the source, sponsorship, af f iliation or endorsement of the websites they resolved to.”). As reasoned above, the Panel f inds that the Complainant has proved the third element of the Policy. 7. Decision For the f oregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name, <onlyf ans9.com>, be transf erred to the Complainant. /Dennis A. Foster/ Dennis A. Foster Sole Panelist Date: December 1, 2025

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