Onlyaifans.org

The timeline behind onlyaifans.org

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. Jury Kuprianov Case No. D2026-3428 1. The Parties The Complainant is Fenix International Limited c/o Walters Law Group, United States of America (“United States”). The Respondent is Jury Kuprianov, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <onlyaifans.org> is registered with Name.com, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 1, 2026. On August 4, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 4, 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 August 4, 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 August 5, 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 August 7, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 27, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 31, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Nels T. Lippert 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 The Complainant owns and operates the website located at the domain <onlyfans.com> and uses the domain name in connection with the provision of a social media platform that allows users to post and subscribe to audiovisual content. According to the Complainant’s Annual Report and Consolidated Financial Statements for the Year Ended 30 November 2023, the <onlyfans.com> website is one of the most popular websites in the world, with more than 305 million registered users. In the United States the Complainant has registered the ONLYFANS word mark in various classes. The Complainant also has registered its lock logo and OF design marks in the United States. In the European Union and the United Kingdom, the Complainant has registered the ONLYFANS word and design marks. In addition, the Complainant holds International Registrations of the word and design marks that have been extended to many countries. Examples of the Complainant’s trademark registrations are: ONLYFANS, United States Registration No. 5769267, registered June 4, 2019; ONLYFANS, United States Registration No. 6253455, registered January 26, 2021; and ONLYFANS, European Union Registration No. 017912377, registered January 9, 2019. The Complainant registered the <onlyfans.com> domain name on January 29, 2013. The disputed domain name was registered on February 27, 2026. At the time of the Complaint and currently, the disputed domain name resolves to a commercial website that offers user-generated entertainment content. The Respondent appears to be an individual reportedly residing in the 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. Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark because it includes the ONLYFANS mark in its entirety and only adds the generic term “ai”. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no affiliation, sponsorship or connection with the Complainant and has not been permitted by the Complainant to use the Complainant’s trademark in the disputed domain name. The Complainant further argues that the Respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name and does not hold any trademarks for the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent was not making a bona fide offering of goods or services because the website to which the disputed domain name resolves also contains a logo that is similar to the Complainant’s registered OF logo. The Complainant argues that the use of the Complainant’s logo and trademark evidences the Respondent is attempting to pass itself off as the Complainant. page 3 In addition, the Complainant contends that given the well-known reputation of its mark, the Respondent was fully aware of the Complainant and its ONLYFANS mark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name. The Complainant contends that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name to offer services in direct competition with the Complainant, including providing user-generated content which competes with the Complainant’s users’ content. Even if the services are considered unrelated, the Complainant argues that the Respondent was likely aware of the Complainant’s trademarks and engaged in bad faith by registering a confusingly similar domain name. The Complainant further asserts bad faith because the Respondent failed to respond to a cease-and-desist letter that was sent to the Respondent on April 22, 2026. Finally, the Complainant argues that the Respondent’s use of a privacy WhoIs service further evidences bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings As noted above, the Respondent did not respond to the Complainant’s contentions. Under the Rules, paragraphs 5(f) and 14(a), the effect of a default by the Respondent is that, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the Panel shall proceed to a decision on the basis of the Complaint. The Panel does not find any exceptional circumstance in this case. Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that in order to divest a respondent of a domain name, a complainant must demonstrate each of the following: (i) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and (ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, “[a] Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable”. In this case, the Panel finds that as a result of the Respondent’s failure to submit a Response, the Respondent has failed to rebut any of the reasonable factual assertions that are made and supported by evidence submitted by the Complainant. By failing to respond, the Respondent has failed to offer the Panel any of the types of evidence set forth in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or otherwise, from which the Panel might conclude that the Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Moreover, the Respondent failed to provide any information or reasoning that might rebut the Complainant’s arguments that the Respondent has acted in bad faith. 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. page 4 The 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 another term here, “ai” 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. Furthermore, it is well established that the applicable Top-Level Domain in a domain name is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.11.1. 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 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. Having reviewed the available record, 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. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity, here claimed as passing off, 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. In the present case, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark. This finding is further supported by the lack of the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.1.4. page 5 Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.2.1. In the present case, the notoriety of the Complainant’s trademark and the fact that the disputed domain name fully incorporates the Complainant’s trade mark with only the addition of the “ai” term supports a finding of registration and use in bad faith. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity, here claimed passing off, constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy. The Panel finds 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 <onlyaifans.org> be transferred to the Complainant. /Nels T. Lippert/ Nels T. Lippert Sole Panelist Date: September 20, 2026

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