DECISION

 

7-Eleven, Inc. v. Center Account / Siriphan Kaewthuam

Claim Number: FA2508002172863

 

PARTIES

Complainant is 7-Eleven, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by David J. Steele of Tucker Ellis, LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Center Account / Siriphan Kaewthuam ("Respondent"), Thailand.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES 

The domain names at issue are <7-eleven.bet> and <711lt.bet>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Richard Hill as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 21, 2025; Forum received payment on August 21, 2025.

 

On August 21, 2025, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <7-eleven.bet> and <711lt.bet> domain names are registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. 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 August 27, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 16, 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@7-eleven.bet and postmaster@711lt.bet. Also on August 27, 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.

 

Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On September 17, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS

In the instant proceedings, Complainant has alleged that the entities which control the domain names at issue are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under several aliases. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") provides that a "complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder." 

 

The Panel finds that the domain names are under common control as the subject domain name <7-eleven.bet> hosts a website that explicitly references the other subject domain name <711lt.bet> in the logo featured in the header of the website. Both disputed domain names resolve to websites emblazoned with the distinctive orange, green, and red colors that form Complainant's trade dress, all in connection with nearly identical content (offering gambling and online gaming services using Complainant's mark) in nearly identical layouts, and all in the Thai language. This is sufficient to find that the domain names were registered by the same domain name holder. See The Valspar Corporation v. Zhou Zhiliang / zhouzhiliang / Zhiliang Zhou / Eric Chow / Visspa Ltd., FA 133934 (Forum Sept. 28, 2010); see also BBY Solutions, Inc. v. White Apple / Dev Kumar, FA 1787251 (Forum June 20, 2018).

 

Consequently, the Panel will rule on both contested domain names, and the two registrants are collectively referred to as "Respondent".

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant states that it has been engaged in the business of, among other things, offering convenience store services and products, either directly or through its licensees, to the general public at various locations throughout the United States since at least as early as 1927. It has grown from the world's first convenience store to over 84,000 stores across 20 countries around the world. Complainant has annually sold billions of dollars of products and services worldwide. Complainant asserts rights in the 7-ELEVEN mark based upon its registration in the United States in 1970. The mark is registered elsewhere around the world and it is famous.

 

Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to its 7-ELEVEN mark as one incorporates the mark in its entirety and merely adds the ".bet" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"); the other contains the digits "711", which are an obvious reference to "7 Eleven", merely adding the letters "lt", together with the ".bet" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names since Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant's 7-ELEVEN mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. Respondent does not use the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the resolving websites impersonate Complainant, displaying Complainant's mark and logo, purporting to offer gambling services. The resolving websites display a page that invites users to login and enter personal data, which can then be used in furtherance of phishing. This phishing is further evidenced by the option to install the app, which is likely an attempt to install malware. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith. The resolving websites impersonate Complainant purporting to offer gambling services. They can be used in furtherance of phishing and to install malware. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in its mark. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has rights in the mark 7-ELEVEN dating back to at least 1970 and uses it to offer convenience store services and products. The mark is well known.

 

The disputed domain names were registered in 2025 and 2024.

 

Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.

 

The resolving websites impersonate Complainant, displaying Complainant's mark and logo, purporting to offer gambling services.

 

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 disputed domain name<7-eleven.bet> incorporates Complainant's 7-ELEVEN mark in its entirety and merely adds the ".bet" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). This does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Dell Inc. v. Protection of Private Person, FA 1681432 (Forum Aug. 1, 2016) ("A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs"); see also Abbott Labs v. Whois Svc., FA 1254682 (Forum May 14, 2009) ("the addition of a gTLD is irrelevant in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a registered mark"); see also Twitter, Inc. v. Jie, FA 1919786 (Forum Dec. 9, 2020) ("The Panel considers the disputed domain name [<twitter.luxe>] to be identical to Complainant's registered [TWITTER] trademark"). Thus the Panel finds that the <7-eleven.bet> domain name is identical to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

The disputed domain name <711lt.bet> contains the digits "711", which are an obvious reference to "7 Eleven", merely adding the letters "lt", together with the ".bet" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). Such changes are generally insufficient to negate confusingly similar under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognizable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element."); see also Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Angelo Kioussis, FA 1784554 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("The domain name contains the mark in its entirety, with only the addition of the generic letters 'sb' and the digits '2018,' plus the generic Top Level Domain ("gTLD") '.com.' These alterations of the mark, made in forming the domain name, do not save it from the realm of confusing similarity under the standards of the Policy."); see also Mrs. World Pageants, Inc. v. Crown Promotions, FA 94321 (Forum Apr. 24, 2000) (finding that punctuation is not significant in determining the similarity of a domain name and mark). Therefore, the Panel finds that the <711lt.bet> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

According to 1.7 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0"): "In specific limited instances, while not a replacement as such for the typical side-by-side comparison, where a panel would benefit from affirmation as to confusing similarity with the complainant's mark, the broader case context such as website content trading off the complainant's reputation, … may support a finding of confusing similarity."

 

Here, Complainant presents evidence showing that both resolving websites contain elements likely intended to make consumers believe that Respondent's site is somehow affiliated with Complainant. This supports the side-by-side comparison above regarding the <711lt.bet> domain name.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), relevant information, such as WHOIS information, can be used as evidence to show a respondent is or is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Fred Wallace, FA 1626022 (Forum July 27, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <chevron-europe.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information named "Fred Wallace" as registrant of the disputed domain name). Here, the WHOIS information of record shows "Center Account / Siriphan Kaewthuam" as the registrant of the disputed domain names. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Complainant presents evidence showing that Respondent uses the disputed domain names to attempt to impersonate Complainant. This does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Edible Communities v. Thoreau, FA 1158554 (Forum Apr. 16, 2008) ("[R]espondent's use of the disputed domain name [<theedibleaustin.com>] to pass itself off as [c]omplainant shows that [r]espondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) as well as Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."); see also Digg v. Digg , FA 1220833 (Forum Oct. 9, 2008) (finding no legitimate interest in respondent's use of the domain name <digg-inc.com> because "[r]espondent is attempting to pass itself off as [c]omplainant" and such "actions do not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain names to make a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.

 

Further, the disputed domain names resolve to websites that offers gambling services. Previous Panels have found that this is not a bona fide or legitimate noncommercial or fair use of a disputed domain name. See Seiko Kabushiki Kaisha v. CS into Tech, FA 198795 (Forum Dec. 6, 2003) (Respondent's domain name "resolves to a Chinese-language website advertising games or gambling.); see also Spike's Holding, LLC v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1736008 (Forum July 21, 2017) ("Using a confusingly similar domain to display unrelated content can evince a lack of a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use… The Panel therefore finds that Respondent's unrelated use of the <finishnline.com> domain name evinces a lack of rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii)."). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain names to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).

 

For all the above reasons, the Panel finds that Complainant does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

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 names.

 

Indeed, as already noted, Respondent uses the disputed domain names to attempt to impersonate Complainant. This evinces bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See American International Group, Inc. v. Walter Busby d/b/a AIG Mergers and Acquisitions, FA 156251 (Forum May 30, 2003) (the resolving website gave every appearance of being associated or affiliated with Complainant's business); see also Mortgage Research Center LLC v. Russell Miranda, FA 993017 (Forum July 9, 2007) (Respondent is implying an affiliation with Complainant, and consumers seeking Complainant's products and services may become confused when encountering Respondent's website). Thus the Panel finds bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

Further, also as already noted, the disputed domain names resolve websites that offer gambling services. This is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Oki Electric Industry Co., Ltd. v. Elizabeth Dobson, FA 1989201 (Forum May. 2, 2022) ("the Panel determines that the disputed domain name's deceptive redirection of internet users to Respondent's website, which offers links to online gambling websites, is deliberately designed for Respondent's commercial gain. Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)."); see also Mars, Inc. v. Double Down Magazine, D2000-1644 (WIPO Jan. 24, 2001) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent linked the domain name <marssmusic.com>, which is identical to the complainant's mark, to a gambling website); see also Qwest Comm'ns Int'l Inc. v. Ling Shun Shing, FA 187431 (Forum Oct. 6, 2003) ("Respondent has attempted to commercially benefit from the misleading <qwestwirless.com> domain name by linking the domain name to adult oriented websites, gambling websites, and websites in competition with Complainant. Respondent's attempt to commercially benefit from the misleading domain name is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)."). Thus the Panel finds bad faith use and registration under Policy ¶4(b)(iv).

 

Finally, Respondent registered the disputed domain names with actual knowledge of Complainant's mark: the resolving websites display Complainant's mark and logo. 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 names and that this constitutes bad faith under 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 <7-eleven.bet> and <711lt.bet> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Richard Hill, Panelist

Dated: September 17, 2025