DECISION

 

7-Eleven, Inc. v. Zhichao Yang

Claim Number: FA2502002138866

PARTIES

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

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <7elevencareer.com>, registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn).

 

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.

 

Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 5, 2025; Forum received payment on February 5, 2025.

 

On February 6, 2025, Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <7elevencareer.com> domain name is registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) has verified that Respondent is bound by the Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) 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 Chinese and English 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@7elevencareer.com. Also on February 10, 2025, the Chinese and English 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 in Chinese and English.

 

On March 4, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDING

Pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a), the Panel finds that persuasive evidence has been adduced by Complainant to suggest that the Respondent is conversant and proficient in the English language. Complainant shows that the domain name targets a United States based company and its United States registered trademark. The at-issue domain name contains the English word "career" as well as a misspelled version of Complainant's 7-ELEVEN trademark. Complainant also shows that Respondent has registered numerous English-language trademarks and has been a respondent in multiple UDRP proceedings that were conducted in English. Complainant further avers that while Respondent will not be prejudiced by conducting the proceedings in English, on the other hand Complainant will be burden by additional costs and delay if the proceedings are conducted in Chinese.  

 

The Panel also notes that the relevant Written Notice of Complaint was proffered in both Chinese and English and Respondent has not opposed Complainant's request that English be the language used in the instant proceeding.

 

Based on the foregoing, Panel concludes that this proceeding should continue in English.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant contends in part as follows:

 

Complainant 7‑Eleven, Inc. has been engaged in the business of, among other things, offering convenience store services to consumers. Established in 1927, Complainant has grown from the world's first convenience store to over 84,000 stores in numerous countries around the world. Complainant's business and its goods and services are famous around the globe.

 

Complainant owns the exclusive rights to the 7‑Eleven trademarks and service marks. In addition to its unsurpassed common law rights in its 7-Eleven marks, Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations in the United States and around the world.

 

Respondent uses its <7elevencareer.com> domain name to host a commercial parking page that includes "related searches" links for related topics including "Job Postings," "Applicant Tracking Systems," and "Employee Onboarding System." Respondent's use of the at-issue domain name is highly likely to create confusion with Complainant as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the domain name with Complainant.

 

Respondent's at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights as the domain name incorporates Complainant's trademark merely omitting the mark's hyphen, adding the term "career," and adding the confusingly similarity analysis irrelevant top-level domain name, ".com." 

 

Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent cannot demonstrate any of the factors that would support its legitimate interest in the at-issue domain name under ¶ 4(c)(i) of the Policy. Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name. Additionally, Respondent does not use the at-issue domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Instead, Respondent uses the domain name to host a commercial parking page that includes sponsored pay-per-click links related to jobs and employment. The domain name has also been flagged by a security vendor as malicious for phishing.

 

Respondent registered and used the at-issue domain name in bad faith. Respondent has made a plainly commercial use of the domain name by using it to host a commercial parking page with pay-per-click links. 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. Additionally, 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 supports a finding of bad faith under the Policy. The at-issue domain name has also been flagged for malicious use relating to phishing. Respondent's bad faith under the Policy is further evidenced by Respondent's registration of other domain names which infringed the rights of a distinctive trademark owner—including Complainant. Lastly, 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 supports a finding of bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has rights in the 7-ELEVEN mark.

 

Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity.

 

Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in the 7-ELEVEN.

 

Respondent uses the <7elevencareer.com> domain name to host a parking page displaying pay-per-click links.

 

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

The at-issue domain name is identical to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Complainant shows that it has USPTO and other national registrations worldwide for its 7-ELEVEN trademark. Any of Complainant's trademark registrations is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant's rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Thermo Electron Corp. v. Xu, FA 713851 (Forum July 12, 2006) (finding that the complainants had established rights in marks where the marks were registered with a national trademark authority).

 

Respondent's <7elevencareer.com> domain name contains Complainant's 7-ELEVEN trademark less its hyphen, followed by the suggestive term "career," with all followed by the ".com" top-level domain name. The differences between Complainant's trademark and Respondent's domain name are insufficient to distinguish one from the other for the purposes of the Policy. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent's <7elevencareer.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's 7-ELEVEN trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Wiluna Holdings, LLC v. Edna Sherman, FA 1652781 (Forum Jan. 22, 2016) (finding the addition of a generic term and gTLD is insufficient in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, absent evidence of Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances Complainant's prima facie showing acts conclusively.

 

Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity and as discussed below there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. See Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC v. Taha Shaikh / Tskdesigners, FA 1814475 (Forum Nov. 25, 2018) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in <spectrumfeature.com> because complainant never gave respondent permission to use the mark in any manner and "Panels may use these assertions as evidence that no rights or legitimate interests exist in a disputed domain name.").

 

The WHOIS information for <7elevencareer.com> indicates that "Zhichao Yang" is the domain name's registrant and there is nothing in the record that substantively supports a finding that Respondent is commonly known by <7elevencareer.com>. As such, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).

 

Respondent uses the confusingly similar <7elevencareer.com> domain name to address parking page offering pay-per-click links. Respondent's use of the <7elevencareer.com> domain name is thus not indicative of a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor of a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Insomniac Holdings, LLC v. Mark Daniels, FA 1735969 (Forum July 15, 2017) ("Respondent's use of <edcorlando.xyz> also does not qualify as a bona fide offering… the <edcorlando.xyz> domain name resolves to a site containing pay-per-click hyperlinks and advertisements… Since these kinds of advertisements generate revenue for the holder of a domain name, they cannot be noncommercial; further, they do not qualify as a bona fide offering.")

 

Given the forgoing, Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in respect of <7elevencareer.com>.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

As discussed below without being exhaustive, there is evidence from which the Panel concludes that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to the Policy.

 

First, Respondent is using its confusingly similar <7elevencareer.com> domain name to address a parking page displaying pay-per-click links. Using the domain name in such manner is disruptive to Complainant's business, takes unfair advantage of the confusion between the at-issue domain name and Complainant's trademark, and indicates Respondent's bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Vivint, Inc. v. Online Management, FA1403001549084 (Forum Apr. 23, 2014) (holding that the respondent had registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith according to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the disputed domain name resolved to a parking page that featured no content besides sponsored advertisements and links).

 

Next, Respondent has suffered multiple prior adverse UDRP decisions. See e.g. BR IP Holder LLC v. Zhichao Yang, FA980472 (Forum Feb. 28, 2022); Dell Inc. v. Zhichao Yang, Zhichao Yang, FA120603 (Forum Nov. 14, 2024); Micro Electronics, Inc. v. Zhichao Yang, FA024806 (Forum Jan. 25, 2023); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Zhichao Yang, FA056045 (Forum Aug. 30, 2023); Morgan Stanley v. Zhichao Yang, FA999991 (Forum Jul. 13, 2022); Capital One Financial Corp. v. Zhichao Yang, FA579520 (NAF Oct. 28, 2014). Respondent's cybersquatting history exhibits a pattern of domain name abuse and suggests Respondent's bad faith in the instant case under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Tommy John, Inc. v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, FA2001001878688 (Forum Feb. 6, 2020) (finding bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) where the respondent had been subject to numerous UDRP proceedings where panels ordered the transfer of disputed domain names containing the trademarks of the complainants).

 

Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the 7-ELEVEN mark when it registered <7elevencareer.com> as a domain name. Respondent's actual knowledge of Complainant's trademark is apparent from the mark's fame, as well as from Respondent's pattern of registering domain names that are confusingly similar to well-known trademarks such as Complainant's 7-ELEVEN mark. See, Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name).

 

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 <7elevencareer.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: March 4, 2025