7-Eleven, Inc. v. Bhukta NA
Claim Number: FA2002001882290
Complainant is 7-Eleven, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by David J. Steele of Tucker Ellis, LLP, California, United States. Respondent is Bhukta NA (“Respondent”), International.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <7-eleven-dk.com>(‘the Domain Name’), registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Dawn Osborne as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on February 6, 2020; the Forum received payment on February 6, 2020.
On February 7, 2020, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <7-eleven-dk.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, 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 February 10, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 2, 2020 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-dk.com. Also on February 10, 2020, 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, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On March 4, 2020 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Dawn Osborne as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the 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, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the Domain Name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
The Complainant is the owner of the mark 7-ELEVEN registered, inter alia, in the USA, Denmark and India with first use in commerce in the USA recorded as 1946.
The Domain Name registered in 2019 is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark adding only a hyphen, the country code for Denmark “dk” and the gTLD “.com” which do not prevent such confusing similarity.
The Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by it and is not authorised by the Complainant.
The Domain Name has been used to send fraudulent e mails pretending to be the Complainant offering jobs in Denmark. Phishing and impersonating a Complainant in e mails is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. It is registration and use in opportunistic bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Complainant is the owner of the mark 7-ELEVEN registered, inter alia, in the USA, Denmark and India with first use in commerce in the USA recorded as 1946.
The Domain Name registered in 2019 has been used for fraudulent e mails impersonating the Complainant using the Complainant’s logo.
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."
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 or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name consists of the Complainant’s 7-ELEVEN mark (registered, inter alia, in the USA, Denmark and India and used since at least 1946 in the USA for grocery retail services) the generic term “dk” indicating Denmark, a hyphen and the gTLD “.com.” Previous panels have found confusing similarity when a respondent merely adds generic terms to a Complainant's mark. See PG&E Corp. v Anderson, D2000-1264 (WIPO Nov. 22, 2000) (finding that respondent does not by adding common descriptive or generic terms create new or different marks nor does it alter the underlying mark held by the Complainant). Nor does the addition of a hyphen. See Health Devices Corp. v Aspen STC, FA 158254 (Forum July, 2003) (The addition of punctuation marks such as hyphens is irrelevant in the determination of confusing similarity pursuant to Policy 4 ¶ (a)(i).). Accordingly the Panel agrees that the addition of the generic term “dk” and a hyphen to the Complainant's mark does not prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant's trade mark pursuant to the Policy.
The gTLD “.com” does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant’s mark, which is the distinctive component of the Domain Name. See Red Hat Inc v Haecke FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the redhat.org domain name is identical to the complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark).
Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar for the purposes of the Policy with a mark in which the Complainant has rights.
As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark. The Respondent has not answered this Complaint and there is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Name.
The Domain Name has been used in a fraudulent e mail scheme using the name of the Complainant and its logo. This is deceptive and confusing and amounts to passing off. As such it cannot amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services or a noncommercial legitimate or fair use. See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Thomas Webber / Chev Ronoil Recreational Sport Limited, FA 1661076 (Forum Mar. 15, 2016) (finding that the respondent had failed to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services or any legitimate noncommercial or fair use, stating, “Respondent is using an email address to pass themselves off as an affiliate of Complainant. Complainant presents evidence showing that the email address that Respondent has created is used to solicit information and money on false pretenses. The disputed domain name is being used to cause the recipients of these emails to mistakenly believe Respondent has a connection with Complainant and is one of the Complainant’s affiliates.”).
As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Impersonating a complainant by use of the complainant’s mark in a fraudulent e mail scam is disruptive and evinces bad faith registration and use. See Microsoft Corporation v Terrence Green/ Whois Agent/Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc., FA 1661030 (Forum Apr 4 2016) (finding that respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to send fraudulent e mails constituted bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy 4(b)(iii).).
As such, the Panelist believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under para 4(b)(iii). There is no need to consider any additional grounds of bad faith.
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-dk.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Dawn Osborne, Panelist
Dated: March 4, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page