Onlyfansred.com

The timeline behind onlyfansred.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. Enrique Perez Case No. D2026-0731 1. The Parties The Complainant is Fenix International Limited c/o Walters Law Group, United States of America (the “United States”). The Respondent is Enrique Perez, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <onlyfansred.com> (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with Tucows Domains Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 20, 2026. On February 23, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On February 23, 2026, 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 February 24, 2026, 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 February 24, 2026. 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 March 2, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 22, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 30, 2026, page 2 The Center appointed Peter J. Dernbach as the sole panelist in this matter on April 7, 2026. 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 provider of an online social media platform that allows Internet users to post and subscribe to audiovisual content, which platform is operated under its official domain name <onlyfans.com> (the “Complainant’s Platform”). The Complainant owns several registered trademarks for the word mark ONLYFANS in, inter alia, Classes 35 and 41, across various jurisdictions (the “Mark(s)”), including: For the word mark ONLYFANS: - United States Trademark Registration No. 5,769,267, registered on June 4, 2019 (in Class 35), first used on July 4, 2016; - United States Trademark Registration No. 6,253,455, registered on January 26, 2021; - European Union Trade Mark Registration No. 017912377, registered on January 9, 2019; and - United Kingdom Trademark Registration No. UK00917912377, registered on January 9, 2019. The Disputed Domain Name was registered on September 30, 2025. According to the evidence, the Disputed Domain Name redirects to a webpage titled “ONLY FANS RED” and “Welcome to Only Fans”, at the domain name <thenewworldtradecenter.com>. The webpage appears to include a search feature along with specific view and comment counters. The bottom of the page displays a copyright notice “Only Fans All Rights Reserved” (the “Respondent’s Webpage”). The Respondent is identified as Enrique Perez, with an address in United States. 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. (i) The Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant contends that it has established both registered rights and unregistered common law rights in its Marks. The Complainant further asserts that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Mark as reproduces the Mark in its entirety. The Complainant argues that the addition of the descriptive or otherwise meaningless word “red” does nothing to avoid confusing similarity. Furthermore, the use of the generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) “.com” in the Disputed Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s official domain name <onlyfans.com> and does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the Policy. (ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant claims that the Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant, nor has the Respondent received any authorization, license, or consent, whether express or implied, to use the Marks in the Disputed Domain Name or in any other manner. Furthermore, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not commonly known by the Marks and does not hold any trademark for the Disputed Domain page 3 Name. The Complainant also contends that the Disputed Domain Name redirects to a commercial website that offers adult entertainment services in direct competition with the Complainant’s services, which does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests. (iii) The Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant contends that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith, noting that the Complainant’s registered rights and unregistered common law rights in the Marks long predate the registration of the Disputed Domain Name and its Marks are internationally well-known. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent either knew or ought to have known of the Marks and likely registered the Disputed Domain Name to target the Marks. Furthermore, the Respondent registered the confusingly similar Disputed Domain Name to offer services in direct competition with the Complainant. Finally, the Respondent did not respond to Complainant’s cease-and-desist letter and hid itself from the public behind a WhoIs privacy wall. The Complainant further contends that use in bad faith should be found as the Disputed Domain Name redirects to a commercial website that offers adult entertainment content in direct competition with the Complainant’s services. Such use is an intentional attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s Webpage by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s Marks as to the source, affiliation, or endorsement of the Disputed Domain Name, which is use in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists three elements, which the Complainant must satisfy with respect to the Disputed Domain Name: (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 in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that the Complainant has established its rights in its Marks through showing their registrations in the United States, the European Union, and the United Kingdom. The Panel finds the Disputed Domain Name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks as the Disputed Domain Name incorporates the ONLYFANS Mark in its entirety. As previous panels have held, where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 1.8. Furthermore, the gTLD in a domain name is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the confusing similarity test. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.11.1. Therefore, the Panel is of the view that the addition of the term “red” and the gTLD “.com” in the Disputed Domain Name does not prevent a finding of the confusing similarity with the Complainant’s Marks. The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. page 4 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 that 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 3.1, section 2.1. In the present case, the Complainant has asserted that it has no connection or affiliation with the Respondent. The Complainant also states that it has never authorized, licensed, or consented to the Respondent’s use of the Marks in the Disputed Domain Name. Furthermore, there is no evidence suggesting that the Respondent - whose name is “Enrique Perez”, as revealed by the Registrar - is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. In addition, having reviewed the available record, the Panel does not find any sign of the Respondent engaging in a bona fide offering of goods or services in connection with its use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Disputed Domain Name. Instead, the Disputed Domain Name redirects to the Respondent’s Webpage, which appears to offer adult entertainment content in direct competition with the Complainant’s Platform. With its extensive use of the phrase “Only Fans” across the Respondent’s Webpage, it appears to be an attempt to pass off as the Complainant or an affiliate of the Complainant. Such use does not confer legitimate rights or interests on the Respondent, nor does it amount to fair use. 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. Therefore, the Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Under the third element of the Policy, the complainant must demonstrate that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. 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. Regarding registration, the Panel notes that the Complainant’s Marks were registered long before the Disputed Domain Name and are internationally well-known in their industry, as panels have recognized in prior cases. Also, the Disputed Domain Name redirects to a website offering adult entertainment content. The Panel is convinced that the Respondent either knew of or should have known of the Complainant’s Marks and their use associated with the Complainant’s business at the time it registered the Disputed Domain Name. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name has been registered in bad faith. Regarding use, the Disputed Domain Name redirects to a website that provides adult entertainment content in direct competition with the Complainant. Such use would divert Internet users to the Respondent’s Webpage potentially for commercial gain or to disrupt the business of the Complainant. Moreover, the Respondent seems to be attempting to pass off as the Complainant or an affiliate with the extensive use of the Complainant’s Mark throughout the Respondent’s Webpage. The Panel concludes that the foregoing constitutes use in bad faith. page 5 Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant has satisfied 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 <onlyfansred.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Peter J. Dernbach/ Peter J. Dernbach Sole Panelist Date: April 21, 2026

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