DECISION

 

7-Eleven, Inc. v. li lin

Claim Number: FA2502002138624

PARTIES

The Complainant is 7-Eleven, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by David J. Steele of Tucker Ellis, LLP, California, USA. The Respondent is li lin ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES 

The domain names at issue are <7elevencorp.com> and <7-elevencorp.com> (the "Domain Names"), registered with Dynadot 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.

 

        David L. Kreider, Chartered Arbitrator (UK), as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 4, 2025; Forum received payment on February 4, 2025.

 

On February 4, 2025, Dynadot Inc confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <7elevencorp.com> and <7-elevencorp.com> domain names are registered with Dynadot Inc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Dynadot Inc has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot 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 February 10, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 3, 2025 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@7elevencorp.com, postmaster@7-elevencorp.com. Also on February 10, 2025, 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.

 

A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on February 18, 2025.

 

On February 18, 2025, 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

The Complainant, 7-Eleven, Inc., has been engaged in the business of offering convenience store services and products, either directly or through its licensees and franchisees, to the general public at various locations throughout the United States since at least as early as 1927. The Complainant owns the exclusive rights to the 7-ELEVEN trademarks and service marks, and to the 7-Eleven trade name (collectively, the "7-ELEVEN Marks").

 

The Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant's 7-ELEVEN Marks, as they merely remove the hyphen for the domain name "7elevencorp.com" and append the abbreviated term "corp" after Complainants' 7-ELEVEN Marks.

 

The Complainant is not aware of the Respondent being known by the Domain Names in any other way. The Respondent has no legitimate reason for using the 7-ELEVEN Marks within the Domain Names, and instead, is using the Domain Names to redirect to a commercial landing page that offers the Domain Names for sale for USD 1,990,000.00 each.

 

Because the 7-ELEVEN Marks are so obviously connected with the Complainant, and because the Domain Names so clearly reference the Complainant's 7-ELEVEN Marks, registration and use by the Respondent, who has no connection with the Complainant, strongly supports a finding of bad faith.

 

The Respondent has registered other domain names which were found to have infringed the rights of distinctive trademark owners. Accordingly, under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii), a pattern of bad faith registration can be established by a showing of a respondent's registration of multiple domain names incorporating a complainant's mark.

 

B. Respondent

The Respondent submits a nine (9) paragraph response written in simplified Chinese characters buried within some 30 pages, many containing a few words or snippets of sentences only. Additionally, the Respondent submits more that 100 screenshots in ".PNG" file format apparently taken from a Chinese-language platform entitled "商标查讯" ["trademark information"].

 

The thrust of the Respondent's submission appears to be that "as of February 5, 2025", many hundreds of domain names incorporating the trademark "7elevencorp" at the second level combined with new top-level domains ("TLDs") are available for purchase on the public internet, and hundreds of similar sounding domain names conveying meaning to the huge public market in China are additionally available for purchase and use (examples cited: "七亿乐问科普" transliterated by the Panel as "qi yi le wen [seven eleven] ke pu [popularized science]"; "柒逸乐闻公司", transliterated as "qi yi le wen [seven eleven] gong si [company]; and "妻依乐吻科普" transliterated as "qi yi le wen [seven eleven] ke pu [popularized science].

 

The Respondent states that his purpose in purchasing the Domain Names "is to hope that in future work, I or others will create some value for the society through the use of the Domain Names in exchange for corresponding money, so as to obtain some rights to live". ["我的⽬的是：期待在之后⼯作中，⾃⼰或他⼈通过使⽤此域名为社会创造⼀些价值来换取相应⾦钱，从⽽获得⼀些⽣存权利".]

 

FINDINGS

1.       The Complainant or its predecessors have continuously and exclusively used the 7-ELEVEN Marks in commerce since 1927, long before the Respondent unlawfully registered the Domain Names. The Respondent does not refute or deny this allegation.

2.       The Complainant registered its 7-ELEVEN Marks as early as August 11, 1970 (United States Patent and Trademark Office registration 896,654).

3.       The Domain Names were registered by the Respondent on October 10, 2024.

4.       The Respondent listed the Domain Names for public sale on the Dynadot web platform for the price of USD 1,990,000.00 each.

5.       The Respondent in the present case, Li Lin, was found by a WIPO Panel in The Citco Group Limited v. li lin (WIPO Case No. D2019-2287) to have registered and used the domain name <ccitco.com> in bad faith, thus reflecting a pattern of abuse within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).

6.       The language of the registration agreement is English. Rule 11 of the UDRP Rules requires that the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement. The Respondent nonetheless submitted an unverified response written in simplified Chinese characters.

7.       The Panel has carefully considered the Respondent's non-conforming Chinese language response.

 

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.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The Complaint alleges that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant's 7-ELEVEN Marks, merely removing the hyphen for the domain name <7elevencorp.com> and appending the abbreviated term "corp" after the 7-ELEVEN Marks, further noting that panels have uniformly concluded that the addition of terms like "corp" or "corporation" to a complainant's mark does not prevent confusing similarity between a domain name and the targeted Complainant's trademark.

 

The Panel agrees and so finds. Moreover, the Respondent does not dispute the Complainant's allegations in relation to the first Policy element.

 

The Complainant has satisfied the first element at Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Here, the Complainant has not licensed the Respondent to use the Complainant's 7-ELEVEN Marks, nor does the Respondent have any legal relationship with Complainant that would entitle the Respondent to use the 7-ELEVEN Marks. Additionally, the Complainant is not aware of the Respondent being known by the Domain Names in any other way.

 

The Complainant alleges that the Respondent has no legitimate reason for using the 7-ELEVEN Marks within the Domain Names, and instead, the Respondent is using Domain Name to redirect to a commercial landing page that offers the Domain Names for sale at prices vastly in excess of the Respondent's out-of-pocket costs. The Respondent does not allege otherwise. Rather, the thrust of the Respondent's position appears to be that third parties in China have themselves registered a staggering assortment of domain names for public sale that incorporate the Complainant's Marks.

 

Under the Policy, once the complainant asserts a prima facie case against the respondent, the respondent bears the burden of proving that it has rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names pursuant to ¶ 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. The Panel finds that the Respondent has failed to allege facts or adduce evidence of any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names, and that any good faith use by the Respondent is inconceivable. See, e.g., Indymac Bank v. Ebeyer, FA 175292 (Forum Sep. 19, 2003).

 

The Complainant has satisfied the second element at Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

It is well settled, the Complainant alleges, that the registration of a confusingly similar domain name that is obviously connected with a particular trademark owner by someone with no connection with the trademark owner suggests bad faith. See Household Int'l, Inc. v. Cyntom Enters., FA 096784 (Forum Nov. 7, 2000). Because the 7-ELEVEN Marks are so obviously connected with Complainant, and because the Domain Names so clearly reference the Complainant's 7-ELEVEN Marks, registration and use by Respondent, who has no connection with the Complainant, strongly supports a finding of bad faith.

 

Finally, as detailed in Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii), a pattern of bad faith registration can be established by a showing of a respondent's registration of multiple domain names incorporating a complainant's mark, and such a pattern can indicate bad faith. UDRP panels have held that establishing a pattern of bad faith conduct requires more than one, but as few as two instances of abusive domain name registration. See, WIPO Overview 3.0 ¶3.1.2.

 

Here, the Complainant avers, the Respondent's bad faith under the Policy is also evidenced by Respondent's registration of another domain name which infringed the rights of a distinctive trademark owner. See Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii); the Respondent was also the respondent in a prior UDRP case which resulted in the transfer of the subject domain name to the complainant in that case. See The Citco Group Limited v. li lin, D2019-2287 (WIPO Nov. 3, 2019) (The Panel Ordered that the <ccitco.com> domain name be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.) Accordingly, the Complainant concludes, the Respondent's bad faith is established under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).

 

The Panel agrees and finds that the circumstances indicate that the Respondent registered or acquired the Domain Names primarily for the purpose of selling the Domain Names to the Complainant who is the owner of the Marks, or to a competitor of the Complainant, for valuable consideration vastly in excess of the Respondent's documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the Domain Name; or registered the Domain Names in order to prevent the Complainant from reflecting the Marks in a corresponding domain name, and engaged in a pattern of such conduct, or both.

 

The Complainant has satisfied the third element at 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 <7elevencorp.com> and <7-elevencorp.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

David L. Kreider, Panelist

Dated: February 19, 2025