7-eleven.site

The timeline behind 7-eleven.site

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. DVLADISLAV SHLEPAKHOVSKIY Claim Number: FA2601002200258 PARTIES Complainant is 7-Eleven, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by David J. Steele of Tucker Ellis, LLP, California, USA. Respondent is DVLADISLAV SHLEPAKHOVSKIY ("Respondent"), Russia. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <7-eleven.site>, registered with Registrar of Domain Names REG.RU LLC. 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. Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 16, 2026. Forum received payment on January 16, 2026. On January 20, 2026, Registrar of Domain Names REG.RU LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <7-eleven.site> domain name is registered with Registrar of Domain Names REG.RU LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Registrar of Domain Names REG.RU LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Registrar of Domain Names REG.RU LLC registration agreement, which is in Russian, 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 January 21, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Russian and English Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 10, 2026 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@7-eleven.site. Also on January 21, 2026, the Russian 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 Russian and English. On February 11, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury 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 ISSUE: LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDING As noted, the Registrar of Domain Names REG.RU LLC registration agreement is in Russian. Pursuant to Rule 11(a), the language of the proceeding in relation to the <7-eleven.site> domain name shall be Russian unless otherwise determined by the Panel, having regard to the circumstances of the proceeding. Complainant requests that the proceeding be conducted in English, noting that the <7-eleven.site> domain name is in English. In the absence of any Response, these circumstances satisfy the Panel that Respondent is likely to be capable of understanding English and that there would be no undue prejudice to Respondent if English were the language of the proceeding. Further, pursuant to Rule 11(a), the Panel determines that the language requirement has been satisfied through the Russian and English language Written Notice of the Complaint and, absent a Response, determines that the proceedings may be conducted in English. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Established in 1927, Complainant has grown from the world's first convenience store to over 84,000 stores in numerous countries around the world. As a result of its extensive use, Complainant has created in its 7-ELEVEN marks one of the most famous and distinctive marks in the world, in which Complainant has common law and registered trademark rights. Complainant operates the website at "www.7-eleven.com". The <7-eleven.site> domain name is identical to Complainant's 7-Eleven marks. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the <7-eleven.site> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name; Complainant has not licensed Respondent to use Complainant's famous 7-ELEVEN marks; nor does Respondent have any legal relationship with Complainant that would entitle Respondent to use the marks; the domain name has been deactivated and Respondent is passively holding it in an inactive state; it has been flagged as malicious by at least one security vendor; Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use at the domain name; entering the domain name into a web browser generates an error message indicating that the site cannot be reached. The <7-eleven.site> domain name was registered and is being used by Respondent in bad faith. Respondent's passive holding of the domain name is evidence of Respondent's bad faith, as is the fact that the domain name has been flagged by at least one security vendor for malicious use. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant has established all the elements entitling it to relief. 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 shown that it has rights inter alia in the famous service mark 7-ELEVEN, including USPTO Registration No. 896,654, registered on August 11, 1970 for retail grocery store service, in International Class 35. The Panel finds Respondent's <7-eleven.site> domain name to be identical to Complainant's 7-ELEVEN mark. The inconsequential ".site" generic top-level domain ("gTLD") may be ignored under this element. See, for example, Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000). Complainant has established this element. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate Respondent's rights or legitimate interests to a domain name for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(ii): (i) before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. The <7-eleven.site> domain name was registered on October 16, 2025, decades after the registration of Complainant's famous 7-ELEVEN mark. It has been flagged by Virus Total for malicious use and does not resolve to an active website. These circumstances, together with Complainant's assertions, are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the <7-eleven.site> domain name. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Dryx Emerson / KMF Events LTD, FA 1849706 (Forum July 17, 2019). Respondent has made no attempt to do so. The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name. Complainant has established this element. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out some circumstances which shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. As noted in the WIPO Overview 3.0, Section 3.1, those circumstances are not exclusive and a complainant may demonstrate bad faith under paragraph 4(a)(iii) by showing that a respondent seeks to take unfair advantage of, abuse, or otherwise engage in behavior detrimental to the complainant's trademark. In the absence of any Response, the circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent was aware of Complainant, its distinctive and famous 7-ELEVEN mark and its "www.7-eleven.com" website when Respondent registered the <7-eleven.site> domain name and that Respondent did so in bad faith with intent to take unfair advantage of Complainant's mark. Although the <7-eleven.site> domain name does not resolve to an active website, as in the leading case of Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003, there is no conceivable active use that could be made of the domain name that would not amount to an infringement of Complainant's rights in its distinctive and famous mark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent's hitherto passive use of the domain name demonstrates registration and use in bad faith. Complainant has established this element. DECISION Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <7-eleven.site> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Alan L. Limbury, Panelist Dated: February 12, 2026 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.