DECISION
7-Eleven, Inc. v. XIAOBAI ZHOU
Claim Number: FA2403002090487
PARTIES
Complainant is 7-Eleven, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by David J. Steele of Tucker Ellis, LLP, California, USA. Respondent is XIAOBAI ZHOU ("Respondent"), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <7-eleven.capital>, <7-eleven.fund>, <7-eleven.partners>, <7-elevenbp.com>, <7-elevencap.com>, <7-elevencapital.com>, <7-elevenfa.com>, <7-elevenfund.com>, <7-elevenvc.com>, <711.fund>, <7eleven.capital>, <7eleven.fund>, <7eleven.partners>, <7elevenbp.com>, <7elevencap.com>, <7elevencapital.com>, <7elevenfa.com>, <7elevenfund.com>, <7elevenvc.com>, <bp7-eleven.com>, <bp7-11.com>, <7-11.capital>, <7-11.chat>, <7-11.fund>, <7-11.investments>, <7-11.partners>, <7-11.ventures>, <7-11bp.com>, <7-11cap.com>, <7-11capital.com>, <7-11chat.com>, <7-11fa.com>, <7-11fund.com>, <7-11gpt.com>, <7-11partner.com>, <7-11partners.com>, <7-11vc.com>, <7-11venture.com>, <7-11ventures.com>, <bp7eleven.com>, <cap7-11.com>, <cap7-eleven.com>, <cap7eleven.com>, <capital7-11.com>, <capital7-eleven.com>, <capital7eleven.com>, <chat7-11.com>, <fa7-11.com>, <fa7-eleven.com>, <fa7eleven.com>, <fund7-eleven.com>, <fund7eleven.com>, <gpt7-11.com>, <partner7-11.com>, <vc7-11.com>, <vc7-eleven.com> and <vc7eleven.com>, registered with NameCheap, 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.
James Bridgeman SC as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on March 26, 2024; Forum received payment on March 26, 2024.
On March 27, 2024, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <7-eleven.capital>, <7-eleven.fund>, <7-eleven.partners>, <7-elevenbp.com>, <7-elevencap.com>, <7-elevencapital.com>, <7-elevenfa.com>, <7-elevenfund.com>, <7-elevenvc.com>, <711.fund>, <7eleven.capital>, <7eleven.fund>, <7eleven.partners>, <7elevenbp.com>, <7elevencap.com>, <7elevencapital.com>, <7elevenfa.com>, <7elevenfund.com>, <7elevenvc.com>, <bp7-eleven.com>, <bp7-11.com>, <7-11.capital>, <7-11.chat>, <7-11.fund>, <7-11.investments>, <7-11.partners>, <7-11.ventures>, <7-11bp.com>, <7-11cap.com>, <7-11capital.com>, <7-11chat.com>, <7-11fa.com>, <7-11fund.com>, <7-11gpt.com>, <7-11partner.com>, <7-11partners.com>, <7-11vc.com>, <7-11venture.com>, <7-11ventures.com>, <bp7eleven.com>, <cap7-11.com>, <cap7-eleven.com>, <cap7eleven.com>, <capital7-11.com>, <capital7-eleven.com>, <capital7eleven.com>, <chat7-11.com>, <fa7-11.com>, <fa7-eleven.com>, <fa7eleven.com>, <fund7-eleven.com>, <fund7eleven.com>, <gpt7-11.com>, <partner7-11.com>, <vc7-11.com>, <vc7-eleven.com> and <vc7eleven.com> domain names are registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. 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 April 3, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 23, 2024 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.capital, postmaster@7-eleven.fund, postmaster@7-eleven.partners, postmaster@7-elevenbp.com, postmaster@7-elevencap.com, postmaster@7-elevencapital.com, postmaster@7-elevenfa.com, postmaster@7-elevenfund.com, postmaster@7-elevenvc.com, postmaster@711.fund, postmaster@7eleven.capital, postmaster@7eleven.fund, postmaster@7eleven.partners, postmaster@7elevenbp.com, postmaster@7elevencap.com, postmaster@7elevencapital.com, postmaster@7elevenfa.com, postmaster@7elevenfund.com, postmaster@7elevenvc.com, postmaster@bp7-eleven.com, postmaster@bp7-11.com, postmaster@7-11.capital, postmaster@7-11.chat, postmaster@7-11.fund, postmaster@7-11.investments, postmaster@7-11.partners, postmaster@7-11.ventures, postmaster@7-11bp.com, postmaster@7-11cap.com, postmaster@7-11capital.com, postmaster@7-11chat.com, postmaster@7-11fa.com, postmaster@7-11fund.com, postmaster@7-11gpt.com, postmaster@7-11partner.com, postmaster@7-11partners.com, postmaster@7-11vc.com, postmaster@7-11venture.com, postmaster@7-11ventures.com, postmaster@bp7eleven.com, postmaster@cap7-11.com, postmaster@cap7-eleven.com, postmaster@cap7eleven.com, postmaster@capital7-11.com, postmaster@capital7-eleven.com, postmaster@capital7eleven.com, postmaster@chat7-11.com, postmaster@fa7-11.com, postmaster@fa7-eleven.com, postmaster@fa7eleven.com, postmaster@fund7-eleven.com, postmaster@fund7eleven.com, postmaster@gpt7-11.com, postmaster@partner7-11.com, postmaster@vc7-11.com, postmaster@vc7-eleven.com and postmaster@vc7eleven.com.
Also on April 3, 2024, 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 April 24, 2024 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed James Bridgeman SC 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 disputed domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES' CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
Complainant claims rights in the 7-ELEVEN mark established the portfolio of trademark and service mark registrations described below and its long and extensive international use of the mark providing convenience store services and products.
Complainant alleges that each of the disputed domain names is confusingly similar to the 7-ELEVEN mark in which it has rights, arguing that they each contain Complainant's mark in its entirety albeit with the word "ELEVEN" replaced by the Arabic numeral in some cases, and the hyphen missing in others.
Complainant helpfully lists the following relevant features of the disputed domain names:
o <7-eleven.capital> Copies Complainant's mark verbatim;
o <7-eleven.fund> Copies Complainant's mark verbatim;
o <7-eleven.partners> Copies Complainant's mark verbatim;
o <7-elevenbp.com> Addition of descriptive term "bp" 3;
o <7-elevencap.com> Addition of descriptive term "cap"4;
o <7-elevencapital.com> Addition of descriptive term "capital";
o <7-elevenfa.com> Addition of descriptive term "fa"5;
o <7-elevenfund.com> Addition of descriptive term "fund";
o <7-elevenvc.com> Addition of descriptive term "vc" 6;
o <711.fund> Replaces "Eleven" with Arabic numeral,
Removes dash;
o <7eleven.capital> Removes dash;
o <7eleven.fund> Removes dash;
o <7eleven.partners> Removes dash;
o <7elevenbp.com> Adds descriptive "bp"; removes of dash;
o <7elevencap.com> Adds descriptive term "cap";removes dash;
o <7elevencapital.com> Adds descriptive term "capital";
removes dash;
o <7elevenfa.com> Adds descriptive term "fa"; removes dash;
o <7elevenfund.com> Adds descriptive term "fund";
removes dash;
o <7elevenvc.com> Addition of descriptive term "vc";
removes dash;
o <bp7-eleven.com> Addition of descriptive term "bp";
o <bp7-11.com> Replaces "Eleven" with Arabic number "11";
addition of "bp";
o <7-11.capital> Replaces "Eleven" with Arabic number "11";
o <7-11.chat> Replaces "Eleven" with Arabic number "11";
o <7-11.fund> Replaces "Eleven" with Arabic number "11";
o <7-11.investments> Replaces "Eleven" with Arabic number "11";
o <7-11.partners> Replaces "Eleven" Arabic number "11";
o <7-11.ventures> Replaces "Eleven" with Arabic number "11";
o <7-11bp.com> Replaces "Eleven" with Arabic number "11";
adds descriptive term "bp";
o <7-11cap.com> Replaces "Eleven" Arabic number "11";
Adds descriptive term "cap";
o <7-11capital.com> Replaces "Eleven" with Arabic number "11";
Adds descriptive term "capital";
o <7-11chat.com> Replaces "Eleven" with Arabic number "11";
adds term "chat" 7;
o <7-11fa.com> Replaces "Eleven" with Arabic number "11";
adds descriptive term "fa";
o <7-11fund.com> Replaces "Eleven" with Arabic number "11";
Adds descriptive term "fund";
o <7-11gpt.com> Replaces "Eleven" with Arabic number "11";
Adds descriptive term "gpt"8;
o <7-11partner.com> Replaces "Eleven" with Arabic number "11";
adds of descriptive term "partner";
o <7-11partners.com> Replaces "Eleven" with Arabic number "11";
adds descriptive term "partners";
o <7-11vc.com> Replaces "Eleven" with Arabic number "11";
Adds descriptive term "vc";
o <7-11venture.com> Replaces "Eleven" with Arabic number "11";
Adds descriptive term "venture";
o <7-11ventures.com> Replaces "Eleven" with Arabic number "11";
Adds descriptive term "ventures";
o <bp7eleven.com> Adds of descriptive term "bp";
removes dash;
o <cap7-11.com> Replaces "Eleven" with Arabic number "11";
adds of descriptive term "cap";
o <cap7-eleven.com> Adds descriptive term "cap";
o <cap7eleven.com> Addition of descriptive term "cap";
removes dash;
o <capital7-11.com> Replaces "Eleven" Arabic number "11";
adds descriptive term "capital";
o <capital7-eleven.com> Adds descriptive term "capital";
o <capital7eleven.com> Adds descriptive term "capital";
removes dash;
o <chat7-11.com> Replaces "Eleven" with Arabic number "11";
adds descriptive term "chat";
o <fa7-11.com> Replaces "Eleven" Arabic number "11";
adds descriptive term "fa";
o <fa7-eleven.com> Adds descriptive term "fa";
o <fa7eleven.com> Adds descriptive term "fa";
removes dash;
o <fund7-eleven.com> Adds descriptive term "fund";
o <fund7eleven.com> Adds descriptive term "fund";
removes dash;
o <gpt7-11.com> Replaces "Eleven" with Arabic number "11";
adds term "gpt";
o <partner7-11.com> Replaces "Eleven" with Arabic number "11";
adds descriptive term "partner";
o <vc7-11.com> Replaces "Eleven" with Arabic number "11";
adds descriptive term "vc";
o <vc7-eleven.com> Adds descriptive term "vc";
o <vc7eleven.com> Addition descriptive term "vc";
removes dash
Complainant submits that each of the disputed domain names plainly misappropriate sufficient textual components from Complainant's 7-ELEVEN mark that an ordinary Internet user who is familiar with Complainant's mark and Complainant's goods would, upon seeing the disputed domain name.
Complainant next alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names arguing that
· Respondent is not known by the disputed domain names;
· nothing in the registrant data or whois data for the disputed domain names supports that Respondent is known by the subject domain names;
· Complainant—which carefully monitors use of its famous 7-ELEVEN marks—is not aware of Respondent being known by the subject domain names;
· Complainant has not licensed Respondent to use Complainant's famous 7-ELEVEN Marks;
· Respondent has no legal relationship with Complainant that would entitle Respondent to use the 7-ELEVEN marks;
· Complainant has not given Respondent permission to use its 7-ELEVEN marks;
· Respondent's unauthorized use of Complainant's marks supports a lack of rights and legitimate interests in the subject domain names as illustrated by the decision in Solstice Marketing Corp. v. Marc Salkovitz d/b/a Image Media, LLC, FA 1040087 (Forum Aug. 31, 2007) (respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name because, in part, respondent lacked authorization to use complainant's registered service mark);
· Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services at the subject domain names;
· screen captures of the websites to which the disputed domain names resolve which are exhibited in an annex to the Complaint, illustrate that Respondent has made a plainly commercial use of the subject domain names, because each of the disputed domain names are clearly used to misdirect users to a commercial website populated by pay-per-click advertisements;
· Respondent cannot demonstrate any of the factors that would support its legitimate interest in the subject domain names under ¶ 4(c)(i) of the Policy, which states that if "before any notice to respondent of the dispute," Respondent uses or prepares to use "the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services";
· instead, Respondent is using the disputed domain names to host commercial parking pages that include sponsored links to, among other goods and services, "Franchise Opportunities," and "Equity Investment", and it is well settled that the use of a domain name to host a parking page populated by pay-per-click advertisements does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services. Hard Rock Cafe International (USA), Inc. v. Ryhan Estate Vineyards, FA 1235573 (Forum Jan. 14, 2009) (use of a confusingly similar domain name to resolve to a website displaying third-party links to unrelated websites is not a "a bona fide offering of goods and services");
· a report exhibited in an annex to the Complaint shows that the disputed domain names have been flagged by security vendors for some combination of spam, phishing, or other malicious uses, and such use also cannot amount to a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under ¶ 4(c)(iii);
· Additionally, the disputed domain names have been flagged by security vendors for some combination of spam, phishing, or other malicious uses, and prior panels have held that such evidence supports a finding that a respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services, See e.g., Google Inc. v. Ahmed Humood, FA 1591796 (Forum Jan. 7, 2015) (finding that the use of the disputed domain name, which was flagged as containing malicious software or phishing, could not amount to a bona fide offering of goods and services).
Complainant next alleges that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.
Firstly, Complainant argues that it is well settled that the use of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a complainant's mark to host a parking page is evidence of bad faith. See Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. Fees, FA 0937704 (Forum Apr. 25, 2007) (holding that the use of a confusingly similar domain name to display links to various third-party websites demonstrated bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)).
Secondly, Complainant submits that because the 7-ELEVEN Mark is so obviously connected with Complainant, and because the subject domain names so clearly reference Complainant, registration by Respondent, who has no connection with Complainant, strongly suggests bad faith. See 7-Eleven, Inc. v. Marquis Frazier, FA 2023522 (Forum Jan. 12, 2023) (noting the fame of the 7-Eleven Marks as supporting a finding of bad faith); also See Household Int'l, Inc. v. Cyntom Enters., FA 0095784 (Forum Nov. 7, 2000) (inferring that the respondent registered a well-known business name with hopes of attracting the complainant's customers).
Thirdly, Complainant contends that Respondent has been the respondent in at least two prior UDRP cases, both of which led to the transfer of the subject domain names to the trademark owner. See Morgan Stanley v. XIAOBAI ZHOU / SHEN YU HE, FA 2026387 (Forum Feb. 6, 2023); Caterpillar Inc v. zhou xiaobai, WIPO Case D2012-1938 (WIPO Dec. 6, 2012). See Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii); DIRECTV, LLC v. michal restl c/o Dynadot, FA 1788826 (Forum July 5, 2018) ("The record contains evidence of Respondents previous eleven UDRP actions, all of which resulted in the transfer of the domain names, thus establishing bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).").
Finally, it is submitted that Respondent's bad faith is further evidenced by the fact that the disputed domain names have been flagged by security vendors for some combination of spam, phishing, or other malicious uses.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
FINDINGS
Complainant is a provider of convenience store services and products, directly and through its licensees and is the owner of a portfolio of registered trademarks for the 7-ELEVEN mark in numerous jurisdictions across the world including the following sample of its United States registrations:
· United States service mark 7-ELEVEN, registration number 896, 654, registered on the Principal Register on August 11, 1970 for services in international class 35;
· United States trademark 7-ELEVEN, registration number 1,702, 010, registered on the Principal Register on July 21, 1992 for services in international class 30;
· United States service mark 7-ELEVEN, registration number 2,685,684, registered on the Principal Register on February 11, 2003, for services in international class 35.
Complainant has an established Internet presence and maintains its principal website at <7-eleven.com>.
There is no information available about Respondent except for that provided in the Complaint, the Registrar's WhoIs and the information provided by the Registrar in response to the request by Forum for details of the registration of the disputed domain name for the purposes of this Complaint.
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 provided uncontested convincing evidence of its rights in the 7-ELEVEN trademark and service mark established by its ownership of an extensive worldwide portfolio of trademark and service mark registrations described below, and extensive use of the mark in its international business providing convenience store services and products.
There are 57 disputed domain names. Complainant has helpfully provide an analysis of the composition of each of them which is set out in Complainant's submissions above.
They are registered across a number of generic Top Level Domains ("gTLD") and each has its relevant extension.
Each contains Complainant's mark in its entirety albeit with the word "ELEVEN" replaced by the Arabic numeral in some, and the hyphen missing in others.
Complainant's mark, whether the element "Eleven" is stated latin script, or in Arabic numeral form, is the dominant element in each of the disputed domain names, and it is well settled that when a domain name at issue contains a complainant's mark in its entirety, it is deemed to be confusingly similar.
Neither the absence of the hyphen nor the inclusion of the additional descriptive or nonsense elements in some of the disputed domain names add any distinguishing character, so the absence or presence of these elements does not prevent a finding that in each case the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark.
Neither does the gTLD extension prevent a finding of that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainants' mark because in the circumstances of this proceeding, it would be considered by Internet users as a necessary technical requirement for an Internet domain name.
This Panel finds therefore that in each case the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the 7-ELEVEN mark in which Complainant has rights and Complainant has therefore succeeded in the first element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Rights or Legitimate Interests
In its Complaint, Complainant has made out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights legitimate interests in the disputed domain names as set out in Complainant's detailed submissions above.
It is well established that once a complainant makes out a prima facie case that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to prove its rights or legitimate interests.
Respondent has failed to discharge that burden and therefore this Panel must find that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in any of the disputed domain name.
Complainant has therefore succeeded in the second element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Complainant has a long-established international reputation in the 7-ELEVEN mark, and its business has expanded into jurisdictions across the world. It is highly unlikely that the registrant of the disputed domain name was unaware of Complainant's mark when the disputed domain names were chosen and registered.
The mark is distinctive and clever and represents the opening hours of a convenience store.
The many different configurations of the disputed domain names, and the various representations of the elements of Complainant's mark within them demonstrates that the registrant took the time on 57 occasions to device the relevant configuration of the disputed domain name and the manner in which Complainant's mark was reflected in it.
The registrant clearly engaged in a considered plan to register a large portfolio of domain names to target Complainant's reputation and goodwill in the 7-ELEVEN mark.
This Panel finds therefore that each of the disputed domain names was registered in bad faith with the intention of targeting Complainant's goodwill and reputation in the mark.
The screen captures exhibited by Complainant in the annex to the Complaint shows that each of the disputed domain names resolves to the Registrar's parking page which hosts pay-per-click links.
On the balance of probabilities Complainant is causing or permitting the disputed domain names to be used in this fashion. The use of Complainant's 7-ELEVEN mark in each of the disputed domain names targets unsuspecting Internet users, and confuses them, with the intention of attracting and diverting their traffic to the location designated by Respondent, and whereby Respondent benefits from pay-per-click revenue. Such use of each of the disputed domain names constitutes bad faith for the purposes of the Policy.
As this Panel has found that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, Complainant has therefore succeeded in the third element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) in respect of each of them.
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 <7-eleven.capital>, <7-eleven.fund>, <7-eleven.partners>, <7-elevenbp.com>, <7-elevencap.com>, <7-elevencapital.com>, <7-elevenfa.com>, <7-elevenfund.com>, <7-elevenvc.com>, <711.fund>, <7eleven.capital>, <7eleven.fund>, <7eleven.partners>, <7elevenbp.com>, <7elevencap.com>, <7elevencapital.com>, <7elevenfa.com>, <7elevenfund.com>, <7elevenvc.com>, <bp7-eleven.com>, <bp7-11.com>, <7-11.capital>, <7-11.chat>, <7-11.fund>, <7-11.investments>, <7-11.partners>, <7-11.ventures>, <7-11bp.com>, <7-11cap.com>, <7-11capital.com>, <7-11chat.com>, <7-11fa.com>, <7-11fund.com>, <7-11gpt.com>, <7-11partner.com>, <7-11partners.com>, <7-11vc.com>, <7-11venture.com>, <7-11ventures.com>, <bp7eleven.com>, <cap7-11.com>, <cap7-eleven.com>, <cap7eleven.com>, <capital7-11.com>, <capital7-eleven.com>, <capital7eleven.com>, <chat7-11.com>, <fa7-11.com>, <fa7-eleven.com>, <fa7eleven.com>, <fund7-eleven.com>, <fund7eleven.com>, <gpt7-11.com>, <partner7-11.com>, <vc7-11.com>, <vc7-eleven.com> and <vc7eleven.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
__________________________________________
James Bridgeman SC
Panelist
Dated: April 25, 2024
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page