7-Eleven, Inc. v. Jarrod Brennet
Claim Number: FA2001001878009
Complainant is 7-Eleven, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by David J. Steele of Tucker Ellis, LLP, United States. Respondent is Jarrod Brennet (“Respondent”), United States.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <711-admin.com>, registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com.
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.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on January 7, 2020; the Forum received payment on January 7, 2020.
On January 9, 2020, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <711-admin.com> domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com 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 January 9, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 29, 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@711-admin.com. Also on January 9, 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 January 31, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Richard Hill 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
Complainant states that it is in the business of offering convenience store services and products. Established in 1946, Complainant has grown from the world’s first convenience store to over 60,000 stores in over 17 countries around the world. Complainant has rights in the 7-ELEVEN mark based on registration in the United States in 1970. The mark is famous.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its mark because it merely replaces the word “Eleven” with the Arabic number “11”, omits the hyphen in the mark, adds the descriptive term “admin,” and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
According to Complainant, Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and is not authorized or permitted to use Complainant’s 7-ELEVEN mark. Additionally, Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name in connection to a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant in a fraudulent e-mail phishing scheme. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
Further, sans Complainant, Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent registered the domain name in order to attempt to induce wire transfers through e-mail. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant owns the mark 7-ELEVEN and uses it for its retail stores. The mark is famous.
Complainant’s rights in its mark date back to 1970.
The disputed domain name was registered in 2019.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its marks.
The disputed domain name is used for a fraudulent e-mail phishing scheme. The signature block of the fraudulent e-mails displays Complainant’s mark.
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”).
The disputed domain name is similar to Complainant’s because it simply replaces the word “eleven” with its corresponding Arabic number “11”; it also adds to the mark a hyphen, the descriptive term “admin,” and a gTLD. Substitution of a numeral for a spelled-out number is insufficient to distinguish a domain name from a mark. See Pandora Media, Inc. v. MASATAMI KITA, FA 1622614 (Forum July 20, 2015) (finding the <pandora1.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s PANDORA ONE mark due to the similarity between the word ONE and the numeral 1 in meaning and sound.). Further, additions of a hyphens, descriptive terms, and a gTLD are generally insufficient to reduce confusing similarity. See Ant Small and Micro Financial Services Group Co., Ltd. v. Ant Fin, FA 1759326 (Forum Jan. 2, 2018) (“Respondent’s <antfinancial-investorrelations.com> Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ANT FINANCIAL mark. It incorporates the mark entirely. It adds a hyphen, the descriptive terms “investor relations,” and the “.com” gTLD, but these additions are insufficient to distinguish the Domain name from complainant’s mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). Therefore, the Panel finds that the <711-admin.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s 7-ELEVEN mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent is not authorized or permitted to use Complainant’s 7-ELEVEN mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: where a response is lacking, WHOIS information can support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY Ta, FA 1789106 (Forum June 21, 2018) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where the complainant asserted it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, and the relevant WHOIS information indicated the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name). Here, the WHOIS information of record lists the registrant as “Jarrod Brennet.” Therefore, the finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Respondent uses the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant for a fraudulent e-mail phishing scheme. Specifically, Complainant provides evidence showing that Respondent uses an e-mail address associated with the disputed domain name to impersonate one of Complainant’s employees through e-mails designed to divert payments to Respondent. The signature block on the e-mails displays Complainant’s mark. Use of an e-mail address associated with a disputed domain name to pass off as a complainant in furtherance of phishing is not indicative of rights or legitimate interests per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Abbvie, Inc. v. James Bulow, FA 1701075 (Forum Nov. 30, 2016) (“Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to pose as Complainant’s CEO by means of email addresses at the confusingly similar domain name in an attempt to determine Complainant’s ability to process a transfer. Using the domain name in this manner is neither a bona fide offering of goods and services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)”). Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant’s contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant’s mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name.
Indeed, as already noted, Respondent uses the disputed domain name for a fraudulent phishing scheme. Use of a domain name to impersonate a complainant in furtherance of a fraudulent phishing scheme may constitute bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Qatalyst Partners LP v. Devimore, FA 1393436 (Forum July 13, 2011) (finding that using the disputed domain name as an e-mail address to pass itself off as the complainant in a phishing scheme is evidence of bad faith registration and use). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Further, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark: the signature block of the fraudulent e-mails displays Complainant’s mark. While constructive notice is insufficient to demonstrate bad faith, actual knowledge of a complainant’s rights in a mark prior to registration may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Custom Modular Direct LLC v. Custom Modular Homes Inc., FA 1140580 (Forum Apr. 8, 2008) (“There is no place for constructive notice under the Policy.”); see also Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) (“The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize ‘constructive notice’ as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it.”); see also Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name). The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark prior to Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name and that this constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <711-admin.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: January 31, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page