WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Fenix International Limited v. Nemanja Krecelj / Nemanja Krecelj, Rocket Science Group

Case No. D2021-2667

1. The Parties

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

The Respondent is Nemanja Krecelj / Nemanja Krecelj, Rocket Science Group, Bosnia and Herzegovina.¹

2. The Domain Names and Registrar

The disputed domain names <freeofnudes.com>, <leakedfanscontent.com>, <leakedof.com>, <leakedofworld.com>, <myofleaks.com>, <of-leaked.com>, and <ofleakedcontent.com> are all registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 15, 2021. On August 16, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with six disputed domain names. On the same day, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for those six disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on August 20, 2021 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed a first amended Complaint on the same day. On August 26, 2021, the Complainant filed a second amended Complaint in which it requested the consolidation of the present case with case number D2021-2712 regarding the additional domain name <leakedof.com>. On September 1, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with this additional disputed domain name. On the same day, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the registrant for the additional disputed domain name was the named Respondent in the Complaint.

The Center verified that the Complaint, together with the first and second amended Complaints, 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 September 6, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 26, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 22, 2021.

The Center appointed Matthew Kennedy as the sole panelist in this matter on October 29, 2021. 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 operates the OnlyFans social media platform at “www.onlyfans.com” where users can post and subscribe to view audiovisual content. The Complainant registered the domain name <onlyfans.com> on January 29, 2013. The Complainant also holds multiple trademark registrations for ONLYFANS, including the following:

- European Union Trade Mark registration number 017912377, registered on January 9, 2019, specifying goods and services in classes 9, 35, 38, 41, and 42; and

- United States trademark registration number 5,769,267, registered on June 4, 2019, with a claim of first use in commerce on April 7, 2016, specifying services in class 35.

The above trademark registrations remain current. According to evidence provided by the Complainant, Alexa Internet rated the Complainant’s OnlyFans social media platform among the 500 websites with the most global Internet traffic and engagement during a 90-day period ending on May 20, 2021.

The registration details for the disputed domain names provide an individual and, with respect to all disputed domain names except <leakedof.com>, an organization.

The disputed domain names were registered on the following dates:

At the time when the original Complaint was filed, the disputed domain names all resolved to websites making available to the public, allegedly for free, photos and videos that had been made available on the Complainant’s subscription-only website and subsequently had been leaked. In the case of the disputed domain name <leakedofworld.com>, the website home page offered a search facility in multiple language versions to search for creators of content on the Complainant’s OnlyFans website by username. All the associated websites displayed the OnlyFans mark; in most cases the website title was the corresponding disputed domain name with the initials “of” spelt out in full as “OnlyFans”. At the time of this Decision, three disputed domain names (<myofleaks.com>, <freeofnudes.com>, and <leakedofworld.com>) continue to resolve to those websites, but the hyperlinks to content now resolve to a seniors’ dating website operated by a third party. Three other disputed domain names (<of-leaked.com>, <ofleakedcontent.com>, and <leakedfanscontent.com>) redirect to domain names with the same respective operational elements but the country code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”) “.co”, instead of “.com”, which resolve to websites that look the same as those to which they resolved before the redirections, but the hyperlinks to content now resolve to the seniors’ dating website. One disputed domain name (<leakedof.com>) no longer resolves to any active website and is passively held.

According to evidence provided by the Complainant, a panel in a previous proceeding under the Policy ordered the transfer of the domain name <onlyleaksfans.com> from the Respondent to the Complainant on the basis of the Respondent’s consent. See Fenix International Limited c/o Walters Law Group v. WhoisGuard Inc. / Nemanja Krecelj, WIPO Case No. D2021-0380.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ONLYFANS mark. Confusing similarity exists where the disputed domain name contains an abbreviation of the mark. Website content may be considered in determining confusing similarity in certain circumstances.

The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. The Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant and has not received any authorization, license, or consent, whether express or implied, to use the Complainant’s marks in the disputed domain names or in any other manner. The Respondent is not commonly known by the Complainant’s marks and does not hold any trademarks for the disputed domain names.

The disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. The Respondent pirates material from the Complainant’s website. The Respondent is a serial cybersquatter who repeatedly registers domain names that contain the Complainant’s ONLYFANS trademark without authorization. The Respondent clearly registered the disputed domain names to divert Internet traffic from the Complainant’s site to a website offering adult entertainment content (including content pirated from the Complainant’s users) in direct competition with the Complainant’s website.

The Complainant requests that the disputed domain names be cancelled.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

6.1 Consolidation of Multiple Domain Name Disputes

Prior to the notification of the Complaint and the commencement of this proceeding, the Complainant requested the consolidation of the dispute regarding the original six domain names at issue in the Complaint with the dispute regarding the additional domain name <leakedof.com> at issue in case number D2021-2712. The Respondent did not comment on the Complainant’s request for consolidation of these domain name disputes.

Paragraph 10(e) of the Rules provides that “[a] Panel shall decide a request by a Party to consolidate multiple domain name disputes in accordance with the Policy and these Rules”. The Panel observes that (a) the underlying registrant of the original six disputed domain names and of the additional disputed domain name is the same person, albeit with partly different contact details as regards the additional disputed domain name; (b) the identity of the underlying registrant is masked by a privacy service in the Registrar’s public WhoIs database and was therefore unknown to the Complainant when it filed the Complaint; and (c) the Complainant requested consolidation of the multiple domain name disputes prior to the notification of the Complaint, after the Center provided the Registrar-confirmed identity of the underlying registrant in each proceeding. The Panel notes that, as a general rule, domain names held by the same registrant may be added to a complaint before notification to the respondent / formal commencement of the relevant proceeding. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.12.1.

Therefore, the Panel decides to consolidate the disputes regarding the original six disputed domain names and the additional disputed domain name <leakedof.com>. All seven disputed domain names are referred to below as the “disputed domain names”.

6.2 Substantive Issues

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must prove each of the following elements with respect to each disputed domain name:

(i) the disputed 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 disputed domain name; and

(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Based on the evidence presented, the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the ONLYFANS mark.

The disputed domain name <leakedfanscontent.com> contains the word “fans” which comprises half the ONLYFANS mark, while the other disputed domain names all contain the letters “of”, which are the initials of the two words that form the ONLYFANS mark. All the disputed domain names combine these truncated or abbreviated versions of that mark in combination with, inter alia, the words “leaked”, “leaked content”, “leaked[…]content”, “leaks”, or “nudes”, which are clearly references to content leaked from, or content on, the Complainant’s OnlyFans website. In these circumstances, the Panel considers that there is a prima facie case of confusing similarity between the disputed domain names and the ONLYFANS mark. Further, the Panel takes note that the websites to which these disputed domain names resolve all display the ONLYFANS mark and make available to the public content previously made available on the Complainant’s subscription-only OnlyFans website, which confirms that the Respondent is seeking to target the ONLYFANS trademark through these disputed domain names. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.15.

The disputed domain names contain dictionary words, including not only those set out above but also “free”, “world”, and “my”, and, in one case, a hyphen. However, the incorporation of these additional words and punctuation does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity as a truncated or abbreviated version of the mark, in combination with references to content leaked from, or on, the Complainant’s OnlyFans website, remains clearly recognizable within these disputed domain names.

The disputed domain names all include the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”. As a mere technical requirement of domain name registration, a gTLD is normally disregarded in the comparison between a domain name and a trademark for the purposes of the first element of the Policy. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.

Therefore, the Panels finds that all the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant has satisfied the first element in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out the following circumstances which, without limitation, if found by the panel, shall demonstrate that the respondent has rights to, or legitimate interests in, a disputed domain name, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy:

(i) before any notice to [the respondent] of the dispute, [the respondent’s] use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the [disputed] domain name or a name corresponding to the [disputed] domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

(ii) [the respondent] (as an individual, business, or other organization) [has] been commonly known by the [disputed] domain name, even if [the respondent has] acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

(iii) [the respondent is] making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the [disputed] domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

As regards the first circumstance set out above, all the disputed domain names formerly resolved to websites making available to the public content leaked from the Complainant’s subscription-only OnlyFans website in direct competition with the Complainant. Six disputed domain names currently resolve or redirect to websites in which the hyperlinks to content now resolve to a third party commercial website. The other disputed domain name no longer resolves to any active website. All the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ONLYFANS mark but the Complainant submits that the Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant and has not received any authorization, license, or consent, whether express or implied, to use the Complainant’s marks in the disputed domain names or in any other manner. The Panel considers that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent is not using the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services within the circumstances of paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy.

As regards the second circumstance, the Respondent is named “Nemanja Krecelj” and, with respect to six disputed domain names, his organization is identified as “Rocket Science Group”. Neither of these names corresponds to a disputed domain name. There is no evidence indicating that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain names as envisaged by paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy.

As regards the third circumstance, regardless of whether the websites associated with the disputed domain names actually operated for free as claimed, they made content available to the public without the consent of the copyright owners. Further, on the websites to which six disputed domain names currently resolve or redirect, the hyperlinks to content resolve to a third party commercial website, while the other disputed domain name is passively held. These circumstances indicate that the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of any of the disputed domain names within the circumstances of paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy.

In summary, the Panel considers that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. The Respondent failed to rebut that prima facie case because he did not allege any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names.

Therefore, based on the record of this proceeding, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the second element in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that certain circumstances, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. The fourth circumstance is as follows:

“(iv) by using the [disputed] domain name, [the respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [the respondent’s] website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [the respondent’s] website or location or of a product or service on [the respondent’s] website or location.”

The disputed domain names were registered in 2020 and 2021, after the Complainant obtained its trademark registrations. The disputed domain names all contain a truncated or abbreviated version of the ONLYFANS mark and resolve or redirect (or, in one case, formerly resolved) to websites displaying the ONLYFANS mark in full, which is a coined word. The disputed domain names contain words that refer to content leaked from, or on, the Complainant’s OnlyFans website and the associated websites made available content from that same website. Moreover, the Respondent demonstrably has had actual knowledge of the Complainant and its ONLYFANS mark since a previous proceeding under the Policy between the Parties that led to a decision dated April 20, 2021, which was prior to the registration of the disputed domain name <leakedfanscontent.com> in the current proceeding. In view of these circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent knew of the Complainant and had its ONLYFANS trademark in mind when he registered the disputed domain names in this proceeding.

All the disputed domain names were formerly used to resolve to websites making available to the public content leaked from the Complainant’s subscription-only OnlyFans website in direct competition with the Complainant. Six disputed domain names currently resolve or redirect to websites in which the hyperlinks to content resolve to a third party commercial website. These websites are operated for the commercial gain of the Respondent, if he is paid to direct traffic to that third party website, or for the commercial gain of the operator of that third party website, or both. In view of all these circumstances and the findings in Section 6.2B above, the Panel finds that the Respondent, by using the disputed domain names, has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his websites, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s ONLYFANS mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website or of a product or service on that website, within the terms of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

The Panel notes that the use of certain disputed domain names has changed since the Complaint was filed. The websites formerly associated with three disputed domain names (<of-leaked.com>, <ofleakedcontent.com>, and <leakedfanscontent.com>) have migrated to domain names with the same respective operational elements but the ccTLD “.co”, instead of “.com”. These are evidently attempts to avoid the application of the Policy, which are themselves an indication of bad faith use. Meanwhile, the disputed domain name <leakedof.com> no longer resolves to any active website. This change does not alter the Panel’s conclusion regarding the use of that disputed domain name; in the circumstances, it may also be an indication of bad faith.

Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. The Complainant has satisfied the third element in paragraph 4(a) 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 names <freeofnudes.com>, <leakedfanscontent.com>, <leakedof.com>, <leakedofworld.com>, <myofleaks.com>, <of-leaked.com>, and <ofleakedcontent.com> be cancelled.

Matthew Kennedy
Sole Panelist
Date: November 10, 2021

¹ At the time when the original Complaint was filed, the name of the registrant of the disputed domain names was masked in the Registrar’s publicly available WhoIs database as follows: “Withheld for Privacy Purposes, Privacy Service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf”. However, the amended Complaints added the Registrar‑confirmed underlying registrant “Nemanja Krecelj“ and “Nemanja Krecelj, Rocket Science Group”. The Panel considers the Registrar-confirmed underlying registrant of the disputed domain names to constitute the Respondent in this proceeding.