7elevens.cc, 7-elevens.shop, 7-elevenshop07.vip

The timeline behind 7elevens.cc

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.

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. Emanuil Last Claim Number: FA2506002160729 PARTIES Complainant is 7-Eleven, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by David J. Steele of Tucker Ellis, LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Emanuil Last ("Respondent"), Afganistan. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES The domain names at issue are <7elevens.cc>, <7-elevens.shop>, and <7-elevenshop07.vip>, registered with Porkbun Llc. 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. Richard Hill as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 13, 2025; Forum received payment on June 13, 2025. On June 17, 2025, Porkbun Llc confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <7elevens.cc>, <7-elevens.shop>, and <7-elevenshop07.vip> domain names are registered with Porkbun Llc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Porkbun Llc has verified that Respondent is bound by the Porkbun Llc 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 June 23, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 14, 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@7elevens.cc, postmaster@7-elevens.shop, and postmaster@7-elevenshop07.vip. Also on June 23, 2025, the 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 formal response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. Respondent did however send an email to the Forum, see below. On July 15, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill 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 formal response from Respondent. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant states that it has been engaged in the business of, among other things, offering convenience store services and products, either directly or through its licensees, to the general public at various locations throughout the United States since at least as early as 1927. It has grown from the world's first convenience store to over 84,000 stores in numerous countries around the world. Complainant has annually sold billions of dollars of products and services worldwide. Complainant asserts rights in the 7-ELEVEN mark based upon its registration in the United States in 1970. The mark is registered elsewhere around the world and it is famous. Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to its 7-ELEVEN mark as they incorporates the mark in its entirety (in one case minus the hyphen) and merely add the letter "s" and in one case the generic/descriptive term "shop07" together with a top-level domain. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position. According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names since Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant's 7-ELEVEN mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. Respondent does not use the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the resolving websites impersonate Complainant, displaying Complainant's mark and logo, purporting to offer drugs and other illegal substances. The resolving websites includes a login and registration page, in furtherance of a phishing scheme that targets Complainant's customers. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position. Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith. The resolving websites impersonate Complainant purporting to offer drugs and other illegal substances. The disputed domain names are used in furtherance of a phishing scheme. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in its mark. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a formal Response in this proceeding. In its email to the Forum, Respondent states, in pertinent part (sic): "I am so sorry about that, i removed them from my account these shops were set up by SCAM customer." FINDINGS For the reasons set forth below, the Panel will not make any findings of fact. DISCUSSION 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. Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable." The Panel interprets Respondent's email to the Forum as consent to transfer the disputed domain names. Thus, in the present case, the parties have both asked for the domain name to be transferred to the Complainant. In accordance with a general legal principle governing arbitrations as well as national court proceedings, this Panel holds that it cannot act nec ultra petita nec infra petita, that is, that it cannot issue a decision that would be either less than requested, nor more than requested by the parties. Since the requests of the parties in this case are identical, the Panel has no scope to do anything other than to recognize the common request, and it has no mandate to make findings of fact or of compliance (or not) with the Policy. See Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Forum Jan. 13, 2004); see also Boehringer Ingelheim Int'l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domain name registration where the respondent stipulated to the transfer); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Forum June 24, 2005) ("[U]nder such circumstances, where Respondent has agreed to comply with Complainant's request, the Panel felt it to be expedient and judicial to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain names."). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy. Rights or Legitimate Interests For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy. Registration and Use in Bad Faith For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy. DECISION Given the common request of the Parties, it is Ordered that the <7elevens.cc>, <7-elevens.shop>, and <7-elevenshop07.vip> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Richard Hill, Panelist Dated: July 15, 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.