DECISION

 

7-Eleven, Inc. v. Osman Yilmaz

Claim Number: FA2601002198012

 

PARTIES

Complainant is 7-Eleven, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by David J. Steele of Tucker Ellis, LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Osman Yilmaz ("Respondent"), Germany.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <7eleven-it.com>, registered with IONOS SE.

 

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 Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 5, 2026; Forum received payment on January 5, 2026.

 

On January 7, 2026, IONOS SE confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <7eleven-it.com> domain name is registered with IONOS SE and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. IONOS SE has verified that Respondent is bound by the IONOS SE 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 January 13, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a German and English Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 2, 2026 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@7eleven-it.com. Also on January 13, 2026, the German 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 German and English.

 

On February 3, 2026, 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDING

Complainant requests that, pursuant to Rule 11, the proceeding be conducted in English. The general rule is that the parties may agree on the language of the administrative proceeding, and in the absence of an agreement, the language of the Registration Agreement should dictate the language of the proceeding.

 

Factors panels should consider in the exercise of that authority include (i) the parties' abilities to understand and communicate in the languages at issue, (ii) the expense and delay that would result from requiring translations of documents, and (iii) whether each party will have a fair opportunity to present its case with expedition and without suffering prejudice. SWX Swiss Exchange v. SWX Financial LTD, WIPO Case D2008-0400 (WIPO May 12, 2008).

 

Complainant firstly argues that the disputed domain name is plainly targeting Complainant who is a United States company, and Complainant's famous 7-ELEVEN trademarks—which are in English. See Citigroup Inc. v. Jun, FA 1742937 (Forum Aug. 28, 2017) (that respondent targeted English language marks constituted "sufficient persuasive evidence Respondent is conversant and sufficiently proficient in the English language"). Respondent registered the subject domain name, which incorporates the 7-Eleven trademark in English, demonstrating Respondent's proficiency in English. Id.

 

Secondly, the WhoIs information provided in the Registrars' verification emails to Forum indicate that the Respondent is located in Germany. According to the EF English Proficiency Index, Germany ranks fourth in the world for English proficiency. It is thus highly likely that the Respondent is proficient in English based on Respondent's residency in Germany. See Robert Half Inc. v. Morial, FA 2116632 (Forum Oct. 17, 2024) ("Factors which previous panels have seen as particularly compelling [include] WHOIS information which establishes Respondent in a country which would demonstrate familiarity with the English language").

 

Thirdly, previous panels have already accepted English as the language of the proceeding in cases involving IONOS SE as the registrar of the disputed domain name which supports a determination that it would be appropriate to conduct the present proceeding in English. See, e.g., Natixis v. 张伟 (Zhang Wei), D2020-2946 (WIPO Mar. 2, 2021) (noting that previous UDRP panels had already accepted English as the language of proceeding in cases involving the same registrar as for the disputed domain name, in determining that English should be the language of the proceeding).

 

Lastly, according to the Forum case coordinator, Respondent will have an opportunity to "request to conduct the proceeding in the language of the registration agreement" which is German, affording Respondent an opportunity to indicate any need to proceed in a different language.

 

In view of the above information, Respondent will not be prejudiced at all if the proceeding proceeds in English. Whereas, conducting the proceeding in German would create a significant additional expense and delay for Complainant due to the need for translation of the complaint into German. Hence, the use of German in the proceeding would impose a burden on the Complainant, which will be excessive given the cost for the present proceeding.

 

Accordingly, Complainant submits that English is the most appropriate language for these proceedings.

 

Having considered Complainant's application, and the interests of efficiency, and expedition and taking into account that Respondent has been notified of the application in the Complaint, that Respondent did not avail of the opportunity to apply to have the proceedings in German, the Panel directs that the proceedings may proceed in English.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant claims rights in the 7-ELEVEN trademark and service mark established by its ownership of the portfolio of registrations described below and extensive use of the mark providing 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.

 

Complainant has used its famous 7-Eleven Marks for over 90 years, and its business has grown from the world's first convenience store to have over 84,000 stores in over 20 countries around the world.

 

Firstly, Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name <7eleven-it.com> is identical or confusingly similar to the 7-ELEVEN mark, arguing that the only difference between the disputed domain name and the 7-ELEVEN mark is the omission of the hyphen between the number "7" and the word "Eleven" and the addition of "-it" at the end.

 

Complainant submits that the addition or removal of a hyphen from Complainant's mark in the disputed domain name does not impact the analysis of confusing similarity, citing 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).

 

Complainant adds that the addition of the term "it," which is a common abbreviation for "information technology," in the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. Novartis AG v. Yun Liu, WIPO Case D2015-1250 (WIPO Sep. 7, 2015) ("The Panel agrees that the addition of the generic term 'it' to the Complainant's mark does not prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant's trademark pursuant to the Policy.").

 

It is further argued that the generic Top-Level Domain Name ("gTLD") extension <.com> is irrelevant to the confusingly similar analysis. See Dermalogica, Inc. and The Int'l Dermal Inst., Inc. v. Andrew Porter and Zen Day Spa, FA 1155710 (Forum Apr. 14, 2008).

 

Secondly, Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, arguing:

·       Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name,;

·       nothing in the WhoIs data for the disputed domain name, supports that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name;

·       Complainant which monitors use of its famous 7-ELEVEN marks is not aware of Respondent being commonly known by the disputed domain name, disputed domain name;

·       Complainant also has not licensed or permitted Respondent to use its famous 7-ELEVEN mark;

·       Respondent has no legal relationship with Complainant that would entitle Respondent to use the 7-ELEVEN mark;

·       Respondent's unauthorized use of Complainant's famous mark supports a lack of rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, referring to 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 does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor any legitimate noncommercial or fair use, but instead has configured the disputed domain name with MX records to enable delivery of email communications;

·       the disputed domain name does not resolve to any active website as illustrated by screen capture of the error message generated by the disputed domain name on the Internet which is exhibited in an annex to the Complaint.

 

Referring to the screen capture exhibited in an annex to the Complaint, Complainant further argues that upon entering disputed domain name into a web browser an error message is generated indicating that the site cannot be reached. However, meanwhile, the disputed domain name has active MX records, indicating that the disputed domain name has been configured to enable delivery of email communications and could be used for fraudulent activity.

 

Referring to the panel decision in Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC v. Wu Yu, FA 2028885 (Forum Mar. 6, 2023), Complainant argues that the fact that Respondent has not set up a website for the disputed domain name but is currently using the disputed domain name for email purposes leads to an inference that Respondent intends to use (or is already using) the domain name at issue to send emails from email addresses hosted by the domain name at issue and to pass itself off as Complainant in an effort to defraud Complainant's customers and/or its business associates.

 

Thirdly, Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith arguing:-

 

The 7-ELEVEN mark is famous, and are so obviously connected with Complainant, the disputed domain name clearly references Complainant, therefore the registration of the disputed domain name 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).

 

Respondent has created an MX record for the disputed domain name to enable delivery of email messages which is evidence of bad faith. See Equifax Inc. v. Whois Privacy, Private by Design, LLC/Damien Surray, WIPO Case D2021-2748 (WIPO Oct. 6, 2021) ("The disputed domain name is also associated with MX records, demonstrating that Respondent has the ability to send from and receive email communications to the disputed domain name. Prior UDRP panels have found the association of MX records with a disputed domain name to be evidence of use in bad faith.").

 

The exhibited screen capture shows that the disputed domain name does not resolve to any active website, and it is well settled that the passive holding of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a complainant's mark constitutes use in bad faith. See Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, WIPO Case D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding the mere holding of an infringing domain name without active use satisfies the bad faith requirement of the Policy).

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant owns retail outlets in numerous jurisdictions across the world bearing the 7-ELEVEN mark for which it holds a portfolio of registrations including the following:

·       United States registered trademark 7-ELEVEN, registration number 896,654. registered on the Principal Register on August 11, 1970, for services in international class 35;

·       United States registered trademark 7-ELEVEN, registration number 1,702,010, registered on the Principal Register on July 21, 1992, for goods in international class 30;

·       United States registered 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 online presence and maintains its principal website at www.7-eleven.com.

 

The disputed domain name was registered March 16, 2021. It does not currently resolve to an active website but has active mail exchangers ("MX") records indicating that it is configured to enable delivery of email communications.

 

There is no information available about Respondent except for that provided in the Complaint as amended, 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.

 

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 evidence that it has rights in the 7-ELEVEN mark established by its global reputation for use of the mark providing services in over 84,000 stores in numerous countries around the world.

 

The disputed domain name <7eleven-it.com> consists of the 7-ELEVEN mark in its entirety albeit with the hyphen moved from after the number "7" to after the word "Eleven" and the addition of the term "it" at the end.

 

It is well established that a panel may find that a domain name at issue is confusingly similar to the trademark relied upon when the mark is contained in its entirety in the disputed domain name.

 

The element "it" is an abbreviation of the term "information technology" and as such is a generic descriptive term and does not add any distinctive element to the disputed domain name.

 

The gTLD extension <.com> would be considered by Internet users as a necessary technical requirement for an Internet domain name and therefore does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and Complainant's mark.

 

This Panel finds therefore that 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

Complainant has made out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as set out in Complainant's detailed submissions above.

 

In particular, the uncontested evidence is that while the disputed domain name does not resolve to any active website, it has been configured with an MX record to facilitate the creation of an email account, and given that the 7-ELEVEN is famous, on the balance of probabilities Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for any bona fide or legitimate activity.

 

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 the disputed domain name.

 

Complainant has therefore succeeded in the second element of the test in Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The uncontested evidence is that the 7-ELEVEN mark has a global reputation providing services in over 84,000 stores in numerous countries around the world.

 

Furthermore the 7-ELEVEN mark is very distinctive containing as it does the Arabic numeral 7 in combination with the English language word "eleven".

 

The disputed domain name was registered March 16, 2021, which was long after Complainant had an established international reputation for its mark.

 

It is most improbable that the registrant of the disputed domain name was unaware of Complainant and its platform when the disputed domain name was chosen and registered.

 

There appears to be no plausible reason for registering the disputed domain name other than to create an association with the Complainant and the goodwill established by its long use of the 7-ELEVEN mark.

 

On the balance of probabilities, therefore, this Panel finds that the disputed domain name was in fact chosen and registered with the Complainant's mark in mind with the intention of taking predatory advantage of the Complainant's rights and goodwill.

 

The uncontested evidence is that the disputed domain name has been passively held since it was registered. However, the disputed domain name's DNS has been configured to include an MX record which indicates on the balance of probabilities that Respondent intends to use it to create an email account. Given the fame of the 7-ELEVEN mark, and that the mark is the dominant element in the disputed domain name, it is improbable that Respondent use the disputed domain name as an email address for any lawful purpose.

 

The Panel finds that Respondent's configuration of the disputed domain name to create an MX record constitutes use in 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, the Complainant has succeeded in the third element of the test in Policy paragraph 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 <7eleven-it.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

James Bridgeman SC, Panelist

Dated: February 5, 2026