Jobs-7-eleven.com, Job-7-eleven.com

The timeline behind jobs-7-eleven.com

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. Essence Waziri / Emmanuel Ramz Claim Number: FA2507002167635 PARTIES Complainant is 7-Eleven, Inc. ("Complainant"), United States, represented by David J. Steele of Tucker Ellis, LLP, United States. Respondents are Essence Waziri and Emmanuel Ramz ("Respondents"), Nigeria. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES The domain names at issue are <jobs-7-eleven.com> and <job-7-eleven.com>, registered with OwnRegistrar, Inc. PANEL The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. David E. Sorkin as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 24, 2025; Forum received payment on July 24, 2025. On July 25, 2025, OwnRegistrar, Inc. confirmed by email to Forum that the <jobs-7-eleven.com> and <job-7-eleven.com> domain names are registered with OwnRegistrar, Inc.; that Respondent Essence Waziri is the current registrant of <jobs-7-eleven.com>; and that Respondent Emmanuel Ramz is the current registrant of <job-7-eleven.com>. OwnRegistrar, Inc. has verified that Respondents are bound by the OwnRegistrar, Inc. registration agreement and have thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy"). On July 28, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 18, 2025 by which Respondents could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondents' registrations as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@jobs-7-eleven.com and postmaster@job-7-eleven.com. Also on July 28, 2025, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondents of the email addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondents via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondents' registrations as technical, administrative, and billing contacts. Having received no response from Respondents, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On August 19, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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[s]" 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 Respondents. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names are effectively under the control of a single entity operating under multiple aliases. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") provides that a "complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder." Complainant notes the composition of the two domain names, the circumstances of their registration, and the manner in which they have been used, among other similarities. Having considered Complainant's allegations and noting that neither Respondent have come forward to dispute the allegation that they are one entity acting under multiple aliases, nor to object to the consolidation of the disputed domain names in a single proceeding, the Panel considers it appropriate to treat the disputed domain names as being under the common control of a single person or entity (hereinafter "Respondent"). PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant and its licensees offer convenience store and gas station services and products at more than 84,000 7-Eleven stores in the United States and many other countries. Complainant states that the 7-ELEVEN mark has been used in connection with such products and services since at least as early as 1927, and asserts that the mark ranks among the most famous and distinctive marks in the world. Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations for 7-ELEVEN and related marks, including United States registrations for 7-ELEVEN in standard character and stylized form. Respondent registered disputed domain names <jobs-7-eleven.com> and <job-7-eleven.com> registered in April and May 2025, respectively. They do not resolve to active websites. Both domain names have been used to impersonate Complainant in email communications with prospective employees. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain names and is not authorized to use Complainant's mark. Complainant contends on the above grounds that each of the disputed domain names <jobs-7-eleven.com> and <job-7-eleven.com> is confusingly similar to its 7-ELEVEN mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names; and that the disputed domain name were registered and are being used in bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The Panel finds that each of the disputed domain names is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used 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 Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; UDRP Perspectives on Recent Jurisprudence, §§ 0.2, 0.8 (updated June 2, 2025), available at https://udrpperspectives.org/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations"). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Each of the disputed domain names <jobs-7-eleven.com> and <job-7-eleven.com> incorporates Complainant's registered 7-ELEVEN trademark, adding the generic term "job" or "jobs," a hyphen, and the ".com" top-level domain. These additions do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain names and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Michaels Stores Procurement Co., Inc. v. Tony Hess, FA 1996907 (Forum June 15, 2022) (finding <jobs-michaels.com> confusingly similar to MICHAELS); 7-Eleven, Inc. v. Shamim Alam / cci, FA 1913463 (Forum Oct. 21, 2020) (finding <7elevenjobs.com> confusingly similar to 7-ELEVEN). The Panel considers the disputed domain names to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights. Rights or Legitimate Interests Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). The disputed domain names incorporate Complainant's registered mark without authorization, and their sole apparent use has been to impersonate Complainant in support of a fraudulent phishing scheme. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Michaels Stores Procurement Co., Inc. v. Tony Hess, supra (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances); 7-Eleven, Inc. v. Shamim Alam / cci, supra (same). Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered a domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location." Respondent registered two domain names incorporating Complainant's registered mark and has used them to impersonate Complainant in support of a fraudulent phishing scheme. Such circumstances are indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., Michaels Stores Procurement Co., Inc. v. Tony Hess, supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances); 7-Eleven, Inc. v. Shamim Alam / cci, supra (same). The Panel so finds. DECISION Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <jobs-7-eleven.com> and <job-7-eleven.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. David E. Sorkin, Panelist Dated: August 19, 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.