Seven-eleven.fun

The timeline behind seven-eleven.fun

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.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION 7-Eleven, Inc. v. lei zi qi / guang zhou qiao rui dian zi shang wu you xian gong si Claim Number: FA2502002138997 PARTIES Complainant is 7-Eleven, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by David J. Steele of Tucker Ellis, LLP, California, USA. Respondent is lei zi qi / guang zhou qiao rui dian zi shang wu you xian gong si ("Respondent"), China. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <seven-eleven.fun> ("Domain Name"), registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn). PANEL The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 6, 2025; Forum received payment on February 6, 2025. On February 6, 2025, Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <seven-eleven.fun> domain name is registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) has verified that Respondent is bound by the Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy"). On February 7, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese and English Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 27, 2025 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@seven-eleven.fun. Also on February 7, 2025, the Chinese and English Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts. Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default in Chinese and English. On February 28, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the Domain Name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PRELIMINARY ISSUES: LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDING The language of the Registration Agreement in this case is Chinese. The Complaint has been provided in English and Chinese and Complainant has indicated that pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a) the language of the proceeding should be English. Pursuant to Rule 11(a), the Panel determines that the language requirement has been satisfied through the Chinese-language Complaint and Commencement Notification, and, absent a formal Response, determines that the remainder of the proceedings may be conducted in English. EFFECT OF PREVIOUS UDRP PROCEEDING This is the second Complaint filed by the Complainant in connection with the Domain Name, the decision in the earlier proceeding being 7-Eleven, Inc. v. lei zi qi / guang zhou qiao rui dian zi shang wu you xian gong si, FA 2126437 (Forum Dec. 27, 2024) ("Earlier Decision"). The earlier proceeding was not decided on the merits; rather the Panel decided, based on the absence of certain evidence in the complaint before it; that it could not accept the Complainant's application that the language of the proceeding be in English. The Panel then dismissed the complaint before it expressly noting that its decision "is no impediment to Complainant filing a new complaint at any time". Notably, unlike in the present proceeding, the earlier complaint was only filed in English; there was no Chinese-language complaint. The WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.18 sets out restrictions on the acceptance of refiled cases, which is defined as a case containing an identical domain name and parties to a previously decided UDRP case in which the prior panel denied the complaint on the merits. The present case is not a refiled case under the definition set out in the Overview; the Earlier Decision was not on the merits; rather it was a dismissal by reason of the earlier complaint failing to comply with the language requirements of the Rules. Even if the present proceeding was identified as a refiled case, one of the exceptions to the general restrictions on the acceptance of refiled cases identified at ¶ 4.18 of the Overview is where the previous case was decided expressly on a "without prejudice" basis. In this case, the Earlier Decision was expressly without prejudice to the Complainant filing a new complaint at any time. The issue identified in the Earlier Decision regarding the language of the proceeding has now been resolved by the provision of the Chinese-language Complaint. I consider that there is no restriction or principle identified in the Policy or previous cases under the Policy that would prevent the Complaint being accepted by the Panel and a decision being issued under the Policy. I consider it appropriate to proceed. Finally, I note that the Earlier Decision has had no other impact on the decision in this proceeding as the Earlier Decision did not involve a finding on any of the substantive issues under the Policy. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Since as early as 1927 Complainant has offered convenience stores and related products under the 7-ELEVEN mark and has developed a significant global reputation in the mark and related trade dress. Complainant asserts rights in the 7-ELEVEN mark based upon registration with multiple national bodies including the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (e.g., Reg. No. 896,654, registered August 11, 1970). Respondent's <seven-eleven.fun> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark because it replaces the number "7" in the 7-ELEVEN mark with the corresponding word "seven" and adds the ".fun" generic top-level domain("gTLD").). Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <seven-eleven.fun> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use its 7-ELEVEN mark in the Domain Name. Respondent also does not use the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent uses the Domain Name to impersonate Complainant and phishes for user information on the website to which the Domain Name resolved prior to the commencement of the proceeding ("Respondent's Website"). Respondent registered and uses the <seven-eleven.fun> domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses the Domain Name in order to pass off as Complainant by creating a page featuring Complainant's 7-ELEVEN Mark and logo that advertises a fraudulent children's event and encourages visitors to provide their personal information in order to access this event. Given the use of the Domain Name for this purpose Respondent had actual notice of Complainant's rights in the 7-ELEVEN mark at the time of registration of the Domain Name. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant holds trademark rights for the 7-ELEVEN mark. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's 7-ELEVEN mark. Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the use of the Domain Name and that Respondent registered and has used the Domain Name in bad faith. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "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." Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred: (1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) ("Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint"). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Complainant has rights in the 7-ELEVEN mark through its registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 896,654, registered August 11, 1970). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in that mark. See Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) (stating, "Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy."). The Panel finds that the <seven-eleven.fun> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's 7-ELEVEN mark as it merely replaces the number "7" with the corresponding and phonetically identical word "seven" to create a phonetically identical term and then adds the ".fun" gTLD. Such changes are not sufficient to distinguish a domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Lucasfilm Entertainment Company Ltd. LLC and Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC v. George Ring / DN Capital Inc., FA 1673825 (Forum June 7, 2016) (finding that "Respondent's <lukasfilm.com> domain name incorporates the LUCASFILM mark and merely substitutes a phonetically identical 'k' for the 'c,'" and is therefore confusingly similar); see Dell Inc. v. Protection of Private Person / Privacy Protection, FA 1681432 (Forum Aug. 1, 2016) ("A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs."). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. In order for Complainant to succeed under this element, it must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) and AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) ("Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names."). The Panel holds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case. Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the 7-ELEVEN mark. Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant. WHOIS information can help support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, especially where a privacy service has been engaged. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA1504001613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists "Dale Anderson" as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)); see also Kohler Co. v. Privacy Service, FA1505001621573 (Forum July 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) where "Privacy Service" was listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name). The WHOIS lists "lei zi qi / guang zhou qiao rui dian zi shang wu you xian gong si" as registrant of record. Coupled with Complainant's unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation or authorization between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The Domain Name is presently inactive but prior to the commencement of the proceeding resolved to the Respondent's Website that impersonated an official website of the Complainant by reproducing the 7-ELEVEN mark and logo. The Respondent's Website advertised a fraudulent event connected to the Complainant and contained a QR code where visitors were directed to download an app to their phones and provide various personal information to the Respondent, which if provided could have assisted Respondent in various malicious activities. Such conduct is best characterized as "phishing". Respondent's use of the Domain Name to impersonate Complainant for the purpose of engaging in a phishing scheme to acquire personal and confidential information is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Caroline Alves Maia, FA 1796113 (Forum Aug. 6, 2018) (finding the respondent lacked rights and legitimate interests in the domain name because it used the name to resolve to a website virtually identical to the complainant's to prompt users to enter their login information so that the respondent may gain access to that customer's cryptocurrency account); see also Caterpillar Inc. v. ruth weinstein, FA 1770352 (Forum Mar. 7, 2018) ("Use of a disputed domain name in an attempt to pass itself off as a complainant and to conduct a phishing scheme is indicative of a failure to use said domain name in connection with a bona fide offer of goods and services per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or otherwise fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).") The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith The Panel finds that, at the time Respondent registered the Domain Name, October 21, 2024, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's 7-ELEVEN mark. The Respondent used the Domain Name to pass itself off as Complainant for financial gain or to disrupt Complainant's business. In the absence of rights or legitimate interests of its own, this demonstrates registration in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). The Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith as Respondent used the Domain Name to impersonate Complainant in furtherance of a phishing scheme. Use of a disputed domain name to impersonate a complainant in furtherance of a phishing scheme is evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Google Inc. v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., FA1506001622862 (Forum Aug. 10, 2015) (finding that the respondent's apparent use of the disputed domain name in furtherance of a 'phishing' scheme further established its bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). DECISION Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <seven-eleven.fun> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist Dated: March 1, 2025 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

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