Onlyfansjapan.xyz, Onlyfanskorea.xyz

The timeline behind onlyfansjapan.xyz

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.

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. kun zhao, Tian Tian Xi Yu Zhong Xin Case No. D2025-4140 1. The Parties The Complainant is Fenix International Limited c/o Walters Law Group, United States of America (“United States”) or (“US”). The Respondent is kun zhao, Tian Tian Xi Yu Zhong Xin, China. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar The disputed domain names <onlyfansjapan.xyz> and <onlyfanskorea.xyz> are registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 9, 2025. On October 10, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On October 14, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent (Domains By Proxy, LLC DomainsByProxy.com) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant October 14, 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 14, 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 20, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 9, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 13, 2025. page 2 The Center appointed Adam Samuel as the sole panelist in this matter on November 25, 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 a US corporation that owns and operates a website located at the domain <onlyfans.com>, registered on January 29, 2013, to provide a social media platform. This allows users to post and subscribe to audiovisual content. The Complainant owns a number of US trademarks for ONLYFANS, e.g. Registration No. 88173568, registered on June 4, 2019. The disputed domain names were both registered on June 14, 2025. Currently, they do not resolve to a website. In the past, they resolved to websites containing the same image of a couple. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of each of the disputed domain names. Notably, the Complainant contends that disputed domain names consist of the Complainant’s trademark with the insertion of “Japan” and “Korea” respectively. This does nothing to avoid confusing similarity. The use of the <.xyz> generic top level domain (“gTLD”) does not change this. The Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant and has not received any authorization, license or consent to sue the Complainant’s trademarks. The Respondent is not commonly known by the Complainant’s trademark and do not hold any trademarks for the disputed domain names. The websites at the disputed domain names advertised adult entertainment and dating services in direct competition with the Complainant. The registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a widely- known trademark creates a presumption of bad faith. The addition of a word to a trademark in a disputed domain names that enhances the likelihood of confusion with the Complainant also suggests bad faith registration and use. Here, the use of the additional words “Japan” and “Korea” enhance the likelihood of confusion by suggesting to users that the services offered at the disputed domain names are official Japanese or Korean services offered by the Complainant. The Respondent clearly registered the disputed domain names to divert Internet traffic from the Complainant’s website to websites offering adult entertainment dating services in competition with the Complainant’s website. The Complainant sent a cease and desist letter to the Respondent on July 24, 2025 to which the Respondent did not respond. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. page 3 6. Discussion and Findings Consolidation: Multiple Respondents The Complainant has applied to consolidate its complaints in relation to <onlyfansjapan.xyz> and <onlyfanskorea.xyz>. The relevant part of paragraph 10 of the Rules reads: “(a) The Panel shall conduct the administrative proceeding in such manner as it considers appropriate in accordance with the Policy and these Rules. (b) In all cases, the Panel shall ensure that the Parties are treated with equality and that each Party is given a fair opportunity to present its case. (c) The Panel shall ensure that the administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition. It may, at the request of a Party or on its own motion, extend, in exceptional cases, a period of time fixed by these Rules or by the Panel. (e) A Panel shall decide a request by a Party to consolidate multiple domain name disputes in accordance with the Policy and these Rules.” Paragraph 4(f) of the Policy says: “Consolidation. In the event of multiple disputes between you and a complainant, ... the complainant may petition to consolidate the disputes before a single Administrative Panel. This petition shall be made to the first Administrative Panel appointed to hear a pending dispute between the parties. This Administrative Panel may consolidate before it any or all such disputes in its sole discretion, provided that the disputes being consolidated are governed by this Policy or a later version of this Policy adopted by ICANN.” Consolidation will have no effect on the time taken to deal with this complaint. The Complaint has been notified to all the Respondent. The only difference between the two Complaints concerns the insertion into the disputed domain names of “Japan” and “Korea” respectively. The Complaint relies on the same screenshot image from the websites to which each disputed domain name resolves. This case falls squarely within paragraph 4(f) of the Policy. For these reasons, the Panel consolidates the two Complaints in this case. Substance To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied: (i) the disputed domain names are 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 names; and (iii) the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The disputed domain names consist of the Complainant’s trademark ONLYFANS, followed by “Japan” and “Korea” respectively and the gTLD “.xyz”. The gTLD is irrelevant here as it is a standard registration requirement. See section 1.11.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). page 4 Section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 says: “Where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, ...or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.” Here, the insertion of the geographic identifiers, “Japan” and “Korea” after the Complainant’s trademark does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain names and the Complainant’s trademark. The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established as regards both disputed domain names. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Respondent is not called “onlyfans.japan”, “onlyfans.korea” or anything similar. There is no evidence that the Complainant has ever authorised the Respondent to use its trademarks. For these reasons, the Panel concludes that the Complainant has met this element. See section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The disputed domain names consist of the Complainant’s distinctive trademark followed by “Japan” and “Korea”, both clear geographic entities. Each of the disputed domain names was registered and updated on the same day. The Respondent’s website pages used to support the Complaint in this case are identical. The Panel concludes from this that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names in order to divert to themselves traffic from Internet users seeking Korean or Japanese versions of the Complainant’s website. This all indicates that the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s business when they registered the disputed domain names and did this either primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s websites by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s websites or location or of a product or service there. This is all evidence of bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name: paragraph 4(b)(iii) and (iv) of the Policy. For these reasons, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith and that the third element of the Policy has been proved. 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 names <onlyfansjapan.xyz> and <onlyfanskorea.xyz> be transferred to the Complainant. /Adam Samuel/ Adam Samuel Sole Panelist Date: December 3, 2025

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