7elevenvip.com

The timeline behind 7elevenvip.com

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.

DECISION 7-Eleven, Inc. v. Sophik Claim Number: FA2602002205371 PARTIES Complainant is 7-Eleven, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by David J. Steele of Tucker Ellis, LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Sophik ("Respondent"), California, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <7elevenvip.com> (the "Disputed Domain Name"), registered with Dominet (HK) Limited. 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 L. Kreider, Chartered Arbitrator (UK), as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 14, 2026; Forum received payment on February 14, 2026. On February 23, 2026, Dominet (HK) Limited confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <7elevenvip.com> domain name is registered with Dominet (HK) Limited and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dominet (HK) Limited has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dominet (HK) Limited 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 March 2, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 23, 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@7elevenvip.com. Also on March 2, 2026, 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 response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On March 24, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David L. Kreider 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. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant has been engaged in the business of offering convenience store and gas station services and products since at least 1927. Complainant has grown from the world's first convenience store to over 84,000 stores in over 20 countries around the world. Complainant owns the exclusive rights to the 7-Eleven trademarks, service marks, trade dress, and trade name (collectively, the "7-Eleven Marks"), which have been continuously and exclusively used by Complainant and its predecessors in the United States since 1927. Complainant owns numerous United States trademark registrations for the 7-ELEVEN mark, the earliest being Registration No. 896,654, registered on August 11, 1970, with a first use in commerce date of at least as early as 1946. Complainant operates its official website at 7-eleven.com. Complainant alleges that the Disputed Domain Name <7elevenvip.com> is confusingly similar to its 7-Eleven Marks because it incorporates the mark in its entirety, omitting only the hyphen between "7" and "Eleven" and appending the generic term "vip," along with the gTLD ".com." Complainant contends that neither the omission of the hyphen nor the addition of the term "vip" is sufficient to distinguish the Disputed Domain Name from the 7-Eleven Marks. Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name, is not affiliated with Complainant, and is not licensed or authorized to use the 7-Eleven Marks. Complainant alleges that Respondent used the Disputed Domain Name to operate a website (the "Respondent's Website") that prominently displayed Complainant's 7-Eleven Marks in connection with a fraudulent online platform for financial services, including online investments, with tiered VIP membership levels requiring deposits ranging from $15 to $66,000 in USDT cryptocurrency. Respondent's Website also included login and registration pages for collecting users' information, presumably as part of a phishing scheme, and offered an app for download. The Disputed Domain Name does not currently resolve to an active website, likely because the hosting company has suspended it. The Google Chrome browser currently displays a "Dangerous site" warning when accessing the Disputed Domain Name, and the domain has been flagged by security vendors for phishing and other malicious activity. Complainant alleges that Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. Respondent registered the domain on December 8, 2025, long after Complainant established its rights in the 7-Eleven Marks. Complainant contends that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights, as evidenced by Respondent's prominent use of the 7-Eleven Marks on Respondent's Website to operate a fraudulent financial services platform. Complainant further contends that Respondent is a repeat offender, having been the named respondent in a prior UDRP proceeding that resulted in the transfer of infringing domain names. Complainant cites bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(ii) and 4(b)(iv). B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The Panel finds the following: Complainant owns registered trademarks for the 7-ELEVEN mark used in connection with its convenience store and gas station services and products. Complainant's earliest United States trademark registration for 7-ELEVEN is Registration No. 896,654, registered on August 11, 1970, with a first use in commerce date of at least as early as 1946. The 7-Eleven Marks have been in continuous use since 1927 and are among the most famous and distinctive marks in the world. Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name <7elevenvip.com> on December 8, 2025. The Registrar-supplied WHOIS information identifies Respondent as "Sophik." There is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name or by 7-Eleven or any similar name under Policy Paragraph 4(c)(ii). Respondent's Website previously resolved to a website that prominently displayed Complainant's 7-Eleven Marks and operated a fraudulent online platform for financial services, including tiered VIP membership levels requiring cryptocurrency deposits, with login and registration pages for collecting users' personal information. The website displayed logos of U.S. regulatory authorities, including the SEC, FINRA, and the NFA, in an apparent attempt to lend false legitimacy to the scheme. The Disputed Domain Name does not currently resolve to an active website. The Google Chrome browser displays a "Dangerous site" warning when accessing the Disputed Domain Name, and the domain has been flagged by multiple security vendors on VirusTotal for phishing and malicious activity. The Panel considers that the previous website was a fraudulent scheme designed to exploit Complainant's goodwill to deceive consumers, and that the current passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name does not alter this conclusion. Respondent is a repeat offender of the Policy, having been the named respondent in a prior UDRP proceeding that resulted in the transfer of infringing domain names: Livanova PLC v. ni nin / lao chen / Sophik, FA 2190000 (Forum Dec. 19, 2025). 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 3.1 at ¶ 4.3. Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Complainant has established rights in the 7-ELEVEN mark through its United States trademark registrations and extensive use in commerce since at least 1927. The Disputed Domain Name <7elevenvip.com> incorporates Complainant's 7-ELEVEN mark in its entirety, omitting only the hyphen between "7" and "Eleven" and appending the generic term "vip," along with the gTLD ".com." The omission of a hyphen is a trivial modification that does not distinguish the Disputed Domain Name from Complainant's mark. See 7-Eleven, Inc. v. Nguyen Minh Hoa, FA 2151829 (Forum June 5, 2025) (finding the omission of the hyphen between the number "7" and word "Eleven" did not distinguish 7elevenvip.info from Complainant's 7-Eleven Marks). The addition of the generic term "vip" likewise does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. See Dell Inc. v. Fu Jian Zhou / Cheng Du Si Wei De Li Ke Ji You Xian Gong Si, FA 2003168 (Forum Aug. 5, 2022) (finding that the addition of the generic term "vip" to complainant's mark does not prevent confusing similarity). The inclusion of the gTLD ".com" is irrelevant to the confusing similarity analysis. See WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 1.11.1. The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's 7-ELEVEN trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name, at which point the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests. See WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 2.1. The WHOIS information identifies Respondent as "Sophik," and there is no evidence that Respondent has been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and is not licensed or authorized to use the 7-Eleven Marks. Respondent used the Disputed Domain Name to operate Respondent's Website, which prominently displayed Complainant's 7-Eleven Marks in connection with a fraudulent online platform for financial services and online investments. Respondent's Website also included login and registration pages for collecting users' personal information, presumably as part of a phishing scheme. Operating a fraudulent financial services platform under Complainant's famous mark is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor is it a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Lineate LLC v. sakiodo,lcd / sakiodo, FA 2102684 (Forum July 11, 2024) (finding that a website displaying a login page as part of a phishing scheme was not a bona fide offering of goods or services). Use of a domain name for illegal activity such as phishing or fraud can never confer rights or legitimate interests. See WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 2.13.1. The Disputed Domain Name does not currently resolve to an active website, which constitutes passive holding. Passive holding of a domain name likewise does not establish rights or legitimate interests. See 7-Eleven, Inc v. 柒一拾 壹（中国）投资有限公司, FA 2055770 (Forum Sept. 18, 2023) (finding that passive holding of the disputed domain name cannot give rise to a right or legitimate interest). Respondent has not submitted a Response or provided any evidence of rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name on December 8, 2025, more than half a century after Complainant established rights in the 7-ELEVEN mark through use in commerce and federal trademark registration. The 7-Eleven Marks are among the most famous marks in the world, and Respondent's Website prominently displayed the 7-Eleven Marks and logo throughout. The Panel has no difficulty finding that Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights. See WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 3.1.4; see also 7-Eleven, Inc. v. Nguyen Minh Hoa, FA 2151829 (Forum June 5, 2025) (finding bad faith registration given the fame and distinctive character of the 7-ELEVEN mark). Respondent used the Disputed Domain Name to operate Respondent's Website, which impersonated Complainant by prominently displaying the 7-Eleven Marks and logo in connection with a fraudulent online platform for financial services and online investments. Respondent's Website featured tiered VIP membership levels requiring cryptocurrency deposits, login and registration pages for collecting users' personal information, and displayed logos of U.S. regulatory authorities in an apparent attempt to lend false legitimacy to the scheme. This conduct constitutes a phishing and fraud scheme calculated to attract internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to source, sponsorship, or affiliation, and constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Morgan Stanley v. Bruce Pu, FA 1764120 (Forum Feb. 2, 2018) (finding bad faith where respondent used the disputed domain name to phish for users' personal information). The Disputed Domain Name has been flagged as a "Dangerous site" by the Google Chrome browser and flagged by multiple security vendors on VirusTotal for phishing and malicious activity. This further evidences bad faith. See Expedia, Inc. v. Charlie Mike, FA 048262 (Forum July 12, 2023) (finding bad faith where the resolving website was indicated as a deceptive site by the Google Safe Browsing tool). The Disputed Domain Name does not currently resolve to an active website. Passive holding of a confusingly similar domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith. See 7-Eleven, Inc. v. Aaron Burns, FA 2145979 (Forum Apr. 15, 2025) (finding bad faith where the disputed domain name was passively held). Furthermore, Respondent is a repeat offender of the Policy, having been the named respondent in a prior UDRP proceeding that resulted in the transfer of infringing domain names. See Livanova PLC v. ni nin / lao chen / Sophik, FA 2190000 (Forum Dec. 19, 2025). Respondent's history of domain name abuse supports a finding of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). The Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith under 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 <7elevenvip.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. David L. Kreider, Panelist Dated: March 25, 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.