Fenix International Limited v Michał Prątnicki, INVERTED8 SP. Z O.o

WIPO Case No. D2025-0744

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Fenix International Limited v. Michał Prątnicki, INVERTED8 SP. Z O.O.

Case No. D2025-0744

1. The Parties

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

The Respondent is Michał Prątnicki, INVERTED8 SP. Z O.O., Poland.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <songheli-onlyfans.com> is registered with OVH (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was f iled in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 25, 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) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 25, 2025, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant f iled an amended Complaint on March 2, 2025.

On February 25, 2025, the Center informed the parties in Polish and English, that the language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain name is Polish. On March 2, 2025, the Complainant conf irmed its request that English be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not submit any comment on the Complainant’s submission.

The Center verif ied that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisf ied 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 notif ied the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 11, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph

page 2

5, the due date for Response was March 31, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any formal response.
The Respondent sent email communications in Polish to the Center on March 14, 16 and 31, 2025.

The Center appointed Louis-Bernard Buchman as the sole panelist in this matter on April 7, 2025. The Panel f inds 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 was founded in 2016 and is operating a social media platform which allows users to post and subscribe to audiovisual content on the Internet. In 2025, the Complainant’s platform has more than 305 million registered users, and is one of the most popular websites on the World Wide Web.

The Complainant owns several registered trademarks containing the term “onlyfans”, including the

- European Union Trade mark No. 017912377, registered on January 9, 2019;

- United Kingdom Trade mark No. UK00917912377, registered on January 9, 2019; and

- United States Trademark No. 5769267, registered on June 4, 2019.

(together hereinaf ter referred to as “the Mark”).

The Complainant also owns inter alia the <onlyfans.com> domain name, registered on January 29, 2013.

The disputed domain name was registered on June 4, 2024, and resolved to a commercial website of fering adult entertainment services. At the time of this Decision, the disputed domain name resolves to an error message.

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 reproduces the Mark, in which it has

rights, and is confusingly similar to the Mark insofar as the disputed domain name contains the element

“onlyfans” and that the addition of the term “songheli” before “onlyfans” is not capable of dispelling the

confusing similarity, as the Mark remains recognizable in the disputed domain name.

The Complainant also contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the

disputed domain name, is not commonly known as “songheli-onlyfans” and never had any affiliation with the

Complainant (which never authorized the Respondent to use the Mark in any manner).

Furthermore, the Complainant contends that the Respondent had knowledge of the Mark and registered the

disputed domain name in bad faith, and is also using it in bad faith.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not formally reply to the Complainant’s contentions. However, the Respondent sent two email communications in Polish on March 14, 16 and 31.

The Respondent states that the content of the website has been removed, and the disputed domain name will expire.

page 3

He also seems to of fer to transfer the disputed domain name to the Complainant.

In the second message, he indicates that the disputed domain name has been removed by the Registrar.

In the third message, he reiterates his consent to transfer the disputed domain name.

6. Discussion and Findings
6.1. Procedural Aspects
A. Language of the Proceeding

The language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Polish. Pursuant to the Rules, paragraph 11(a), in the absence of an agreement between the parties, or unless specif ied otherwise in the registration agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the

registration agreement.

The Complaint was filed in English. The Complainant requested that the language of the proceeding be English on the grounds that the disputed domain name contains words in English (“only” and “fans”) and has

links to English-language websites. Furthermore, the Respondent did not make any specif ic submissions

with respect to the language of the proceeding.

In exercising its discretion to use a language other than that of the registration agreement, the Panel has to

exercise such discretion judicially in the spirit of fairness and justice to both parties, taking into account all

relevant circumstances of the case, including matters such as the parties’ ability to understand and use the
proposed language, time and costs (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP

Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.5.1).

In addition, pursuant to paragraph 10(c) of the Rules, the Panel must ensure that the administrative
proceeding takes place with due expedition.

Having considered all the matters above, the Panel, who is conversant in both Polish and English, considering the time and cost for the Complainant of translating and submitting the Complaint in Polish, determines pursuant to paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the language of the proceeding shall be English.

B. Consent to Transfer

Where a complainant has sought transfer of a disputed domain name and the respondent consents to
transfer, then a panel may make an order for transfer solely on the basis of that consent and without

providing a reasoned decision as to the merits of the case. See section 4.10 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. However, despite a respondent’s consent, a panel may still proceed to a reasoned decision should it consider it appropriate to do so in the circumstances mentioned in section 4.10. Those circumstances may include a case where, notwithstanding the respondent’s consent, the complainant still seeks a reasoned decision.

In this case, despite the Respondent’s informal of fer to transfer, the Complainant did not request the suspension of the proceeding for settlement purposes.

The Panel deems further appropriate to render a decision on the merits.

Failure to respond formally

As aforementioned, no formal Response was received f rom the Respondent.

page 4

In this case, the Panel finds the Respondent has failed to rebut any of the reasonable factual assertions that are made and supported by evidence submitted by the Complainant. In particular, 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, f rom which the Panel might conclude that the Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in the

disputed domain name, such as making legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.

Moreover, as discussed below, the Respondent has failed to provide any exculpatory information or reasoning that might have led the Panel to question the Complainant’s arguments that the Respondent has acted in bad faith.

6.2. Requirements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

It is well accepted that the f irst 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 3.0, section 1.7.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark

or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

The Panel f inds the Mark is recognizable 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.

While the addition of another term, here “songheli”, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent a f inding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.

Regarding the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” in the disputed domain name, it is well established that a gTLD does not generally affect the assessment of a domain name for the purpose of determining identity or confusingly similarity. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1.

Based on the available record, the Panel f inds the f irst 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.

While 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 often impossible

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. 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 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.

page 5

Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity (here impersonation/passing off ) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.

Based on the available record, the Panel f inds the second element of the Policy has been established.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

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 3.0, section 3.2.1.

As noted above, the Respondent has failed to provide any exculpatory information or persuasive reasoning that might have led the Panel to question the Complainant’s arguments that the Respondent acted in bad faith by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s Mark by registering the disputed domain name.

In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial

gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Mark.

First, the registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a famous or widely-known trademark by

an entity that has no relationship to that mark may be, depending on the circumstances, evidence of

opportunistic bad faith. See section 3.1.4, WIPO Overview 3.0.

Second, it is well-established in prior UDRP decisions that where the respondent knew or should have

known of a trademark prior to registering the disputed domain name, such conduct may be, in certain

circumstances, evidence of bad faith registration. See Weetabix Limited v. Mr. J. Clarke, WIPO Case No.
D2001-0775.

In this case, the Complainant provided evidence that numerous UDRP panels have found that the Mark is well-known. See for instance Fenix International Limited v. Withheld for Privacy Purposes, Privacy Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Leon Key, WIPO Case No. D2021-3132; Fenix International Limited v. Privacy Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Andrei Ivanov, WIPO Case No. D2021-3384; Fenix International Limited v. Withheld for Privacy Purposes, Privacy Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Rajav Rai, WIPO Case No. D2021-3181; Fenix International Limited v. Withheld for Privacy Purposes,

Privacy Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Eduardo Guerrero Romero, WIPO Case No.
D2021-3180; Fenix International Limited v. Host Master, 1337 Services LLC, WIPO Case No. D2021-2652;
Fenix International Limited v. Ladislav Hricko / 1a world Ltd, admin Me / Whois Privacy Corp., WIPO Case
No. D2021-2522; Fenix International Limited c/o Walters Law Group v. Scripcariu Bogdan, WIPO Case No.
D2021-2068; Fenix International Limited v. Dontrell Mcfarland, WIPO Case No. D2021-2232; Fenix
International Limited c/o Walters Law Group v. Marouan Elmarchoum, Marouan, WIPO Case No.
D2021-1583; Fenix International Limited c/o Walters Law Group v. Reshad Bashir, AXC BV, WIPO Case
No. D2021-1603; Fenix International Limited c/o Walters Law Group v. Andrei Ivanov, WIPO Case No.
D2021-1284; Fenix International Limited v. Datos privados, WIPO Case No. D2021-1306; Fenix
International Limited v. Nicolas Landry, WIPO Case No. D2021-0881; Fenix International Limited v. Withheld
for Privacy Purposes, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Andrei Ivanov, WIPO Case No.
D2021-1339; Fenix International Limited v. Private Whois, Knock Knock WHOIS Not There, LLC / Alberto
Sainz, WIPO Case No. D2021-0864; Fenix International Limited v. Leon Key, Key International enterprises
LLC, WIPO Case No. D2021-0836; Fenix International Limited v. Kiril Kirilov, WIPO Case No. D2021-0853;
Fenix International Limited v. Jayson Many, media friend / WhoisGuard, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2021-0880;
Fenix International Limited c/o Walters Law Group v. Juan Anton, Onlyfanx, WIPO Case No. D2021-0837;
Fenix International Limited v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard Inc. / Genadiy Ivanov, WIPO Case No.
D2021-0828; Fenix International Limited v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard Inc. / kadene wignall, WIPO
Case No. D2021-0825; Fenix International Limited v. Danesco Trading Ltd. / Mikasantik Dikalov, WIPO
Case No. D2021-0593; Fenix International Limited v. Andre Fabrici, WIPO Case No. D2021-0377; Fenix
International Limited v. Leandro Vinicius Bau, WIPO Case No. D2021-0584; Fenix International Limited v.

page 6

Host Master, 1337 Services LLC, WIPO Case No. D2021-0582; Fenix International Limited c/o Walters Law Group v. WhoisGuard, Inc., WhoisGuard Protected / Wrenn Taylor, WIPO Case No. D2021-0350; Fenix International Limited v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / henry chandler, WIPO Case No.

D2021-0340; Fenix International Limited v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / Yazid Laiss / Stive Belb / Ahmed Bel Bouahli, WIPO Case No. D2021-0152; Fenix International Limited c/o Walters Law Group v. WhoisGuard, Inc., WhoisGuard Protected / Marry Mae Cerna, WIPO Case No. D2021-0327; Fenix
International Limited v. Domains By Proxy, LLC. / Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico,
WIPO Case No. D2020-3447; Fenix International Limited v. Domain Admin, Privacy Protect, LLC
(PrivacyProtect.org) / Juan Paolo Dino, WIPO Case No. D2020-3460; Fenix International Limited v.
WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / Howard Jones, WIPO Case No. D2020-3444; Fenix International
Limited v. Domains By Proxy, LLC, Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico, WIPO Case No.
D2020-3048; Fenix International Limited v. Perfect Privacy, LLC/ Chad Moston, Speedplexer, WIPO Case

No. D2020-1162.

Considering this evidence, the Panel f inds that it is impossible to believe that the Respondent chose to

register the disputed domain name randomly with no knowledge of the Mark. See Barney’s Inc. v. BNY

Bulletin Board, WIPO Case No. D2000-0059; Kate Spade, LLC v. Darmstadter Designs, WIPO Case No.
D2001-1384; citing Cellular One Group v. Paul Brien, WIPO Case No. D2000-0028; and Sembcorp

Industries Limited v. Hu Huan Xin, WIPO Case No. D2001-1092.

This f inding is reinforced by the fact that the Respondent used the disputed domain name to offer competing
services under the Complainant’s Mark.

Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity (here, claimed impersonation/passing of f) constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel f inds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy.

Finally, some UDRP panels have held that in certain circumstances, registrants of domain names have a duty to abstain from registering and using a domain name, which is either identical or confusingly similar to a

prior trademark held by others and which would infringe upon or otherwise violate the rights of a third party.

See Policy, paragraph 2(b); Nike, Inc. v. B. B. de Boer, WIPO Case No. D2000-1397; Nuplex Industries

Limited v. Nuplex, WIPO Case No. D2007-0078; Mobile Communication Service Inc. v. WebReg, RN, WIPO
Case No. D2005-1304; BOUYGUES v. Chengzhang, Lu Ciagao, WIPO Case No. D2007-1325; Media
General Communications, Inc. v. Rarenames, WebReg, WIPO Case No. D2006-0964; and mVisible

Technologies, Inc. v. Navigation Catalyst Systems, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2007-1141.

Based on the available record, the Panel f inds the third element of the Policy has been established.

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, <songheli-onlyfans.com>, be transferred to the Complainant.

/Louis-Bernard Buchman/
Louis-Bernard Buchman
Sole Panelist
Date: April 11, 2025