Fenix International Limited c/o Walters Law Group v Adebisi ayobami

WIPO Case No. D2025-2370

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Fenix International Limited c/o Walters Law Group v. Adebisi ayobami,
cardeXclusive

Case No. D2025-2370

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Fenix International Limited c/o Walters Law Group, United States of America (“United

States”), represented by Walters Law Group, United States.

The Respondent is Adebisi ayobami, cardeXclusive, Nigeria.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <onlyfansrileyreidfree.online> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the

“Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 16, 2025. connection with the disputed domain name. On June 17, 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, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 18, 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 June 18, 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 June 19, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5,
the due date for Response was July 9, 2025. The Respondent sent email communications to the Center on
June 19, 2025. The Center informed the Parties that it would proceed to panel appointment on July 10,

page 2

The Center appointed Shwetasree Majumder as the sole panelist in this matter on July 11, 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 owns and operates a social media platform that allows Internet users to post and subscribe to audiovisual content. This social media platform is known as OnlyFans and its website is “ The Complainant’s mark ONLYFANS is registered in several jurisdictions around the world. These trademark registrations include:

- ONLYFANS – European Union Trademark Registration No. 017912377, registered on January 9,
2019, in classes 9, 35, 38, 41 and 42;

- ONLYFANS – United Kingdom Trademark Registration No. UK00917912377, registered on January 9,
2019, in classes 9, 35, 38, 41 and 42;

- ONLYFANS – United States Registration No. 5769267, registered on June 4, 2019, in class 35.

The Complainant registered the disputed domain name <onlyfans.com> on January 29, 2013. Over the
years, the Complainant’s trademark rights in its mark ONLYFANS have been recognized in a vast number of

UDRP decisions.

The disputed domain name was registered on November 17, 2024. The Respondent’s website purports to
be a social media profile of a celebrity model and offers subscriptions for adult content. On April 1, 2025, the

Complainant sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Respondent but did not receive any response.

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 its ONLYFANS trademark. The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name consists of the Complainant’s ONLYFANS trademark with the only difference being the addition of a celebrity model’s name, plus the descriptive term “free” which does nothing to avoid confusing similarity. The Complainant contends and cites past UDRP decisions which have held that the addition of other third-party marks is insufficient in itself to avoid the finding of confusing similarity under the first element.

The Complainant asserts that the Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant contends that the Respondent neither has any connection or affiliation with the Complainant nor received any authorization, license, or consent, whether express or implied, to use the Complainant’s trademarks in the disputed domain name or in any other manner. The Complainant also asserts that the Respondent is not commonly known by the trademarks of the Complainant and does not hold any trademark rights for the disputed domain name. The Complainant further submits that it has achieved global fame and success in a short time, which makes it clear that the Respondent knew about the Complainant, who tried to impersonate the Complainant. The Complainant further submits that the Respondent cannot claim the right to use the disputed domain name under fair use, since it includes the trademark of the Complainant and the additional terms which create a risk of implied affiliation, especially considering that the Respondent’s website is designed to look like an OnlyFans profile. The Complainant also submits that using a disputed domain name to host commercial websites that advertise goods and services in direct competition with the trademark owner does not give rise to legitimate rights or interests.

page 3

The Complainant further asserts that the Respondent is using an identical or confusingly similar domain guise of subscriptions to Riley Reid’s OnlyFans account.
name to direct Internet users to a website that is a copycat of the Complainant’s website. Such actions of
the Respondent are aimed at misleading Internet users that its website is related to or even operated by

The Complaint contends its trademark ONLYFANS is a widely-known mark and there is presumption of bad faith on the Respondent’s part. The Complainant submits that the additional terms “riley reid” and “free” within the disputed domain name enhances the likelihood of confusion by suggesting to Internet users that the lookalike profile is authorized or is an official free OnlyFans profile. The Complainant also asserts that the Respondent’s website offers services in direct competition with the Complainant. The Complainant has argued that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name to divert Internet traffic from the Complainant’s website to a website allegedly offering free OnlyFans content in direct competition with the Complainant’s website. The Complainant has cited past UDRP decisions to contend that use of a domain name for illegal activity such as phishing, is considered evidence of bad faith.

B. Respondent

The Respondent neither replied substantively to the Complainant’s contentions nor filed any formal
response. However, the Respondent has sent several informal email communications to the Center on June
19, 2025, stating: “Good day, please I’ll like to contact the sender of this mail. I’ve seen this mail but I
thought it was scam, I don’t have any link to this and I need help in cancelling it”, “Good day, please how do I
go about this? I’m just a software developer and I have little knowledge of the level of breach I have involved

myself in” and “Good day please I’ll like to settle this case, how do I go about it.”

6. Discussion and Findings

The Panel notes that the Registrar has confirmed “Adebisi ayobami, cardeXclusive” as the registrant of the disputed domain name. As long as the Respondent’s informal email communications may be understood as a claim that the disputed domain name was registered for a third party, the Panel notes that the Respondent has not provided any detailed explanation, let alone evidence, in this regard. The Panel will therefore consider the Registrar-confirmed registrant of the disputed domain name (i.e.: “Adebisi ayobami, cardeXclusive”) as the Respondent for the purposes of these proceedings.

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

The Complainant has demonstrated its rights in respect of a trademark 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. The addition of other terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the trademark. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark 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.

page 4

Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the Complainant, Panels have recognized 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.

The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark and is used for a website using a similar colour scheme as that of the Complainant’s platform and offering services in direct competition with the Complainant. In the Panel’s view, this signals the Respondent’s intention of taking unfair advantage of the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant as to the origin or affiliation of the website at the dispute domain name.

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 notes that the disputed domain name was registered on November 17, 2024, ONLYFANS or the terms comprising the dispute domain name and registered the disputed domain name solely to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website.
long after the Complainant had established rights in its ONLYFANS trademarks. The Panel finds that the
Respondent likely used the disputed domain name for phishing and to falsely portray himself as the
Complainant and mislead unsuspecting Internet users that its website is connected with the Complainant.

Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitute 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 <onlyfansrileyreidfree.online> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Shwetasree Majumder/
Shwetasree Majumder
Sole Panelist
Date: July 25, 2025