Eng-onlyfans.com

The timeline behind eng-onlyfans.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. Emily Smith Case No. D2026-3308 1. The Parties The Complainant is Fenix International Limited c/o Walters Law Group, United States of America (“United States”). The Respondent is Emily Smith, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <eng-onlyfans.com> is registered with Dynadot Inc (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 26, 2026. On July 27, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 28, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification 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 July 28, 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 amended Complaint on July 28, 2026. The Center verified that the Complaint, together with the amended 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 August 11, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 31, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 1, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Michael A. Albert as the sole panelist in this matter on September 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 Complainant owns and operates the website located at the domain name <onlyfans.com> and has used its domain name for several years in connection with the provision of a social media platform that allows users to post and subscribe to audiovisual content on the World Wide Web. In providing its services, Complainant has made extensive use of the ONLYFANS trademark (“Mark”). Complainant has registered rights in the Mark with the European Union Intellectual Property Office (“EUIPO”), the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office (“UKIPO”), and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), and Complainant has developed extensive common law rights. Complainant’s registrations of the ONLYFANS mark include the following: - EUIPO Trade Mark No. EU017912377, filed June 5, 2018, registered on January 9, 2019; - EUIPO Trade Mark No. EU017946559, filed August 22, 2018, registered on January 9, 2019; - UKIPO Trade Mark No. UK00917912377, filed June 5, 2018, registered on January 9, 2019; - UKIPO Trade Mark No. UK00917946559, filed August 22, 2018, registered on January 9, 2019; - USPTO Registration No. 5769267, filed October 29, 2018, registered on June 4, 2019; - USPTO Registration No. 5769268, filed October 29, 2018, registered on June 4, 2019; and - USPTO Registration No. 6253455, filed November 2, 2019, registered on January 26, 2021. Complainant established that it has had registered rights in the ONLYFANS Mark since as early as January 9, 2019. Respondent registered the disputed domain name on February 13, 2026, several years after Complainant registered its ONLYFANS Mark. Complainant sent a cease-and-desist letter to Respondent on April 19, 2026, and received no reply. Respondent was previously found liable in a UDRP proceeding brought by Complainant concerning the domain name <en-onlyfans.com>, which was ordered to be transferred to the Complainant on December 31, 2025. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. Notably, Complainant contends that Respondent’s disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s Mark; that Respondent has neither rights nor legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. In particular, Complainant alleges that Respondent has used the disputed domain name to host “copycat” website that mirror the content and format of Complainant’s website. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. page 3 6. Discussion and Findings 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 Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 1.7. Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, 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 3.1, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms, here, “eng-,” 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 3.1, section 1.8. 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 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. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent has not rebutted 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. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity here, copycat site, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1. 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. Respondent was undoubtedly well aware of Complainant and had Complainant’s mark in mind when registering the disputed domain name. Indeed, the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and a well-known mark coupled with its use to host a copycat version of Complainant’s official site makes it page 4 highly plausible that Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name was an intentional effort to capitalize on or otherwise take advantage of the likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s trademark rights. Respondent has not even attempted to rebut this reasonable inference. Moreover, Respondent was previously found to have registered and used the domain name <en-onlyfans.com> — nearly identical to the disputed domain name here — in bad faith targeting this same Complainant's mark, and that domain name was ordered transferred to Complainant. See Fenix International Limited c/o Walters Law Group v. Emily Smith, mm, WIPO Case No. D2025-4660 (December 31, 2025); Policy paragraph 4(b)(ii) (pattern of registering infringing domain names is evidence of bad faith). Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity, here, the copycat site, constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy. The Panel finds that 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 <eng-onlyfans.com> be transferred to Complainant. /Michael A. Albert/ Michael A. Albert Sole Panelist Date: September 21, 2026

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