ENDsun Services LLC v tian tao

WIPO Case No. D2025-1329

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

ENDsun Services LLC v. tian tao

Case No. D2025-1329

1. The Parties

The Complainant is ENDsun Services LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by

Silverstein Legal, United States.

The Respondent is tian tao, China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <loyalfanscom.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 April 1, 2025.
On April 2, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in
connection with the disputed domain name. On April 2, 2025, 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, Super Privacy Service LTD
c/o Dynadot) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to
the Complainant on April 3, 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 April 3, 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 April 4, 2025. In accordance with the Rules,
paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 24, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response.
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 25, 2025.

page 2

The Center appointed Adam Taylor as the sole panelist in this matter on May 2, 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

Since 2019, the Complainant has operated an online platform that enables creators to monetize and share content with fans under the mark LOYALFANS.

The Complainant owns United States trade mark No. 6,443,921 for LOYALFANS, registered on August 10,

2021, in class 42.

The Complainant operates a website at “

The disputed domain name was registered on October 7, 2024.

As of March 28, 2025, the disputed domain name resolved to a website that was headed “LoyalFans”, and which invited users to “[j]oin Loyal Fans to explore a unique adult content platform where you can connect with your favourite models through live chat and exclusive content!”. This text was followed by “Visit” and “Register” buttons plus an image of mobile phone displaying a mobile app headed with the Complainant’s LOYALFANS logo. The site purported to provide information about the Complainant’s service, including a link to the Complainant’s website. The “About Us” page started: “Welcome to LoyalFans, a dynamic

platform designed to empower content creators…”

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.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

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 trade mark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel

Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7.

The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trade mark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy.
WIPO Overview 3.0, 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 3.0, section 1.7.

page 3

Although the addition of other terms (here, “com”) 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 3.0, 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 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 recognised
that proving 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 3.0,

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.

As to paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy, and as further discussed in section 6C below, the Panel considers that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, confuse and profit from Internet users seeking the Complainant’s services. Such use of the disputed domain name could not be said to be bona fide.

Nor is there any evidence that paragraphs 4(c)(ii) or (iii) of the Policy are relevant in the circumstances of this case.

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 considers that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trade mark in accordance with paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

Not only does the disputed domain name comprise a likely “typosquatting” version of the Complainant’s mark
(i.e., aimed at users who omit the dot before “com” when typing the Complainant’s own domain name), but
the Respondent has used the disputed domain name for a website that prominently displays
the Complainant’s mark and logo. While the aim of the site is apparently to generate affiliate revenue by
directing users to the Complainant’s website, the Respondent has set about this in a way that implies that

the Respondent’s site is operated by, or officially connected with, the Complainant.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy.

page 4

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 <loyalfanscom.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Adam Taylor/ Adam Taylor Sole Panelist Date: May 15, 2025