DECISION

 

7-Eleven, Inc. v. zhao ying

Claim Number: FA2509002175035

 

PARTIES

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

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES 

The domain names at issue are <7elevenpromotion.online> and <7eleven-promote.online>, 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 September 3, 2025; Forum received payment on September 3, 2025.

 

On September 4, 2025, Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <7elevenpromotion.online> and <7eleven-promote.online> domain names are registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. 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 September 9, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese and English Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 29, 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@7elevenpromotion.online, postmaster@7eleven-promote.online. Also on September 9, 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 September 30, 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 names 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. To wit, Complainant shows that the at-issue domain names targets a United States based company and its United States registered English language trademark. The at-issue domain names contain the English words "promotion" and "promote" as well as the English top-level "online." Further, the content of the websites hosted at the at-issue domain names are primarily in English.

 

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

 

Complainant states 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 agrees. Consequently since Respondent most likely has a working knowledge of English and has not objected to proceeding in English, Complainants would be unduly burdened if the instant UDRP dispute continued in Chinese as there would be no cognizable benefit to Respondent, the dispute resolution provider, or the Panel, and yet Complainants would have to bear the time and expense of facilitating the translation of relevant documents into Chinese.

 

Based on the foregoing, the 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.

 

The at-issue domain names are each confusingly similar to the 7-ELEVEN mark. The at-issue domain names merely omit the hyphen in the 7-Eleven marks ("7eleven") and then add the generic term "promotion" or a hyphen and the term "promote." The addition of a generic top-level domain name, in this case ".online," to the at-issue domain names is also irrelevant to confusingly similar analysis as is the addition or removal of a hyphen. 

 

Respondent has no rights or interests in the at-issue domain names. Respondent is not known by either at-issue domain name. Nothing in the WHOIS data for the domain names supports that Respondent is commonly known by the subject domain name.  Complainant also has not licensed Respondent to use Complainant's famous 7-Eleven marks, nor does Respondent have any legal relationship with Complainant that would entitle Respondent to use the 7-Eleven marks. Instead, Respondent uses the domain names to impersonate Complainant by hosting websites prominently displaying Complainant's 7-Eleven marks, including its distinctive trade dress and logos, in connection with hosting fraudulent job application and franchisee recruiting websites - something Complainant would never authorize. The websites at the at-issue domain names included "Apply Now" links inviting individuals to apply for jobs or request franchising information. The websites invite users to click "Apply Now" links from which Respondent may collect personal information such as name, WhatsApp number, and email address in furtherance of a phishing scheme. Respondent's use of the subject domain names to impersonate Complainant and in this manner demonstrates that Respondent has no legitimate interest in the subject domain names. The at-issue domain name <7eleven-promote.online> has been flagged by at least one security vendor for malicious activity. Such use can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. Respondent use of the domain names to impersonate Complainant show that Respondent is not making legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the at-issue domain names. Accordingly, Respondent cannot demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the at-issue domain names.

 

Respondent has registered and is using the at-issue domain names in bad faith.  Respondent has used the subject domain names to host job application and franchising websites that impersonate Complainant in furtherance of a phishing scheme to acquire users' personal information. Respondent knew of Complainant's trademark rights at the time of the domain names' registration and was attempting to create a likelihood of confusion with Complainant and its famous marks.  Additionally, Respondent's bad faith is evidenced by the fact that the subject domain name <7eleven-promote.online> was flagged by at least one security vendor for malicious activity. Furthermore, registering 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.

 

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 names after Complainant acquired rights in the 7-ELEVEN.

 

Respondent uses the <7elevenpromotion.online> and <7eleven-promote.online> domain names to impersonate Complainant by hosting websites prominently displaying Complainant's 7-ELEVEN marks, including its trade dress and logos, in connection with hosting fraudulent job application and franchisee recruiting websites.

 

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 names are each confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Complainant shows that it has USPTO and other national registrations worldwide for its 7-ELEVEN trademarks. 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 <7elevenpromotion.online> and <7eleven-promote.online> domain names each contain Complainant's 7-ELEVEN trademark less its hyphen, followed by the suggestive term "promotion," or followed by an insignificant hyphen and the term "promotion," with all followed by the ".online" top-level domain name. The differences between Complainant's trademarks and either of Respondent's domain names are insufficient to distinguish one from the other for the purposes of the Policy. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent's <7elevenpromotion.online> and <7eleven-promote.online> domain names are each confusingly similar to Complainant's 7-ELEVEN trademarks 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)); see also U.S. News & World Report, Inc. v. Zhongqi, FA 0917070 (Forum Apr. 9, 2007) (spaces, punctuation, and gTLDs do not impact a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) determination).

 

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 names. 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 names. 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 the <7elevenpromotion.online> and <7eleven-promote.online> domain names indicates that "zhao ying" is the domain names' registrant and there is nothing in the record that substantively supports a finding that Respondent is commonly known by either <7elevenpromotion.online> or <7eleven-promote.online>or any variation thereof. As such, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by either 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 <7elevenpromotion.online> and <7eleven-promote.online> domain names to address websites dressed as if they sponsored by Complainant and that are further concerned with fraudulent job application and franchising recruiting regarding Complainant. Respondent's bogus websites invite users to click "Apply Now" links and thereby attempt to collect personal information in furtherance of a phishing scheme. Notably, Respondent's <7eleven-promote.online> domain name has been flagged by a security vendor for malicious activity. Respondent's use of <7elevenpromotion.online> and <7eleven-promote.online> to pose as Complainant and misdirect internet users to Respondent's imposter websites is 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) (refusing to find rights and legitimate interests in a domain name on the part of a respondent when the disputed domain name "resolves to a website that Respondent has designed to mimic Complainant's own in an attempt to pass itself off as Complainant"). Likewise, the security vendor's malicious designation is also evidence that Respondent's use of such domain name is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. See GRF Services Limited v. Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot, FA817534 (Forum Dec. 20, 2018) (finding screenshots from third-party threat detection services indicating that the disputed domain name was malicious was sufficient evidence to show that the domain name was being used for some manner of nefarious activity rather than a bona fide offering of goods or services).

 

Given the forgoing, Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in respect of <7elevenpromotion.online> and <7eleven-promote.online>.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

As discussed below without being exhaustive, Respondent acted in bad faith.

 

First, Respondent is using its confusingly similar <7elevenpromotion.online> and <7eleven-promote.online> domain names to address websites impersonating Complainant in support of a phishing scheme to collect internet users' personal information by inviting such users to "Apply Now" concerning job application and franchising information. Such use of the domain names shows Respondent's bad faith registration and use of each under the Policy. See Morgan Stanley v. Bruce Pu, FA 1764120 (Forum Feb. 2, 2018) ("[T]he screenshot of the resolving webpage allows users to input their name and email address, which Respondent may then use to fraudulently phish for personal information. Thus, the Panel agrees that Respondent phishes for information and finds that Respondent does so in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).")

 

Next and as mentioned above regarding rights and legitimate interests, Respondent's <7eleven-promote.online> domain name has been flagged by a security vendor for malicious activity. The third party security warning is further confirmation of Respondent's bad faith concerning the at-issue <7eleven-promote.online> domain name. See Nutramax Laboratories, Inc. v. Baodan / Jimmy Carter, FA FA2507002164984 (Forum August 7, 2025) ("The Panel further notes that the disputed domain name is currently blocked by Chrome as a "Dangerous Site," based on phishing activity identified by Google Safe Browsing….The Panel finds that such passing off and phishing activities constitute disruption of Complainant's business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)").

 

Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the 7-ELEVEN marks when it registered <7elevenpromotion.online> and <7eleven-promote.online> as domain names. Respondent's actual knowledge of Complainant's trademark is apparent from the mark's fame as well as from Respondent's use of the domain names to pass off as Complainant. See Lemon Inc. v. Sumer Singh, FA 2110519 (Forum Sept. 5, 2024 ("registration of a disputed domain name with actual knowledge of another's trademark rights is sufficient to establish bad faith, and can be shown by the notoriety of the mark and the use the Respondent makes of the disputed domain name"); see also, 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 <7elevenpromotion.online> and <7eleven-promote.online> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: October 1, 2025