DECISION

 

7-Eleven, Inc. v. Ratmir Burbeck

Claim Number: FA2606002225445

 

PARTIES

Complainant is 7-Eleven, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by David J. Steele of Tucker Ellis, LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Ratmir Burbeck ("Respondent"), Colorado, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <slurpbee.com> (the "Disputed Domain Name"), registered with Squarespace Domains LLC.

 

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 H. Bernstein as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 4, 2026; Forum received payment on June 4, 2026.

 

On June 8, 2026, Squarespace Domains LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <slurpbee.com> domain name is registered with Squarespace Domains LLC and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Squarespace Domains LLC has verified that the Respondent is bound by the Squarespace Domains 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 June 11, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 6, 2026, by which the Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on the Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@slurpbee.com. Also on June 11, 2026, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying the Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to the Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on the Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.

 

A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on June 30, 2026. 

 

On July 2, 2026, pursuant to the Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David H. Bernstein 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.

 

The Respondent submitted a Response without the Annexes separated from the Response.  Forum issued a deficiency notice stating:  "This Response was received without the annexes separated from the response, therefore Forum does not consider this Response to be in compliance with . . . the Supplemental Rules."  Although Forum's Supplemental Rules do require that each party submit the annexes in a file separate from the Complaint and Response, the Panel does not deem this formatting requirement to be essential.  Because the Respondent submitted its Response and Annexes in a fashion that allowed them to be easily shared with and reviewed by the Panel, the Panel has elected to accept the Response notwithstanding this technical deficiency.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

The Complainant requests that the Disputed Domain Name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

 

The Complainant and its licensees offer convenience store services and products at more than 84,000 locations in 20 countries, including the United States. One of the Complainant's most famous products is a semi-frozen soft drink sold under the SLURPEE trademark. The Complainant and its predecessors have used the SLURPEE trademark since 1966 in connection with a wide range of goods and services. The Complainant asserts that it has spent millions of dollars advertising and promoting the SLURPEE mark and its associated products on social media platforms under the username @Slurpee and through a webpage about the SLURPEE brand, which is accessible at www.slurpee.com. The Complainant owns numerous United States trademark registrations for SLURPEE, the earliest being Registration No. 829,177, registered on May 23, 1967. The Complainant also asserts common law trademark rights in the SLURPEE mark and claims that the mark is famous worldwide.

 

The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. 

 

First, the Complainant asserts that the Disputed Domain Name <slurpbee.com> is confusingly similar to its SLURPEE trademark, merely adding the letter "b" after the letter "p."  According to the Complainant, the Disputed Domain Name plainly misappropriates the textual components from the SLURPEE trademark.  The phonetic and visual similarity would lead an ordinary Internet user who is familiar with the Complainant and its SLURPEE trademark to think that an affiliation exists.

 

Second, the Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant asserts that no goods or services are offered by the Respondent in connection with the Disputed Domain Name because it does not resolve to a website. The Complainant notes that the Disputed Domain Name has active MX records, indicating that the Respondent may intend to use, or is already using, the Disputed Domain Name to impersonate the Complainant through email communications.  The Complainant also states that the Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name, has no relationship with the Complainant, is not licensed or authorized to use the Complainant's trademark and is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name. 

 

Third, the Complainant claims that the Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. According to the Complainant, its SLURPEE trademark is so closely associated with the Complainant, and the Disputed Domain Name so clearly references that trademark, that the only plausible explanation for the Respondent's registration is an intent to trade on the Complainant's goodwill.  The Complainant contends that the Respondent's passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name supports a finding of bad faith under the Policy.  The Complainant finally points to the ongoing risk of impersonation through the Disputed Domain Name's active MX records. 

 

B. Respondent

The Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name on September 11, 2025. The Respondent denies that the Complainant can satisfy all three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.  

 

First, the Respondent contends that <slurpbee.com> was registered for a project called "SlurpBee," which is intended to aggregate and publish popular content on a publicly accessible feed.  The Respondent does not dispute the Complainant's trademark rights and does not claim permission to use the Complainant's trademarks.  According to the Respondent, the Disputed Domain Name was independently chosen for a website project that used bee, buzz, and hive themes.

 

Second, the Respondent asserts that he has rights or legitimate interests as demonstrated by preparations to use <slurpbee.com> for a "hobby web project" before notice of the dispute.  In support of this argument, the Respondent submitted screen captures of the website's change history, a preview of the website during development, website hosing invoices, domain records, and an original logo concept depicting a bee (timestamped September 11, 2025).  Throughout the website's development, the Respondent contends that the project did not copy the Complainant's website, logos, color scheme, products, social-media content, or promotional materials. The Respondent cites to the registration of <slurpbee.app> and <beesip.me> as evidence that the project used bee-themed naming conventions independent of the Complainant's trademarks.

 

Third, the Respondent claims that he did not register the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith.  There is no evidence that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name primarily to sell it to the Complainant, prevented the Complainant from reflecting its mark in a domain name, registered the Disputed Domain Name to disrupt the Complainant's business, or sought commercial gain by creating confusion with the Complainant's mark.  The Respondent emphasizes that the error page shows that the website is incomplete, not that the Respondent was attempting to impersonate the Complainant.  To the contrary, "SlurpBee" was allegedly live during September and October 2025 for testing and later stalled due to resource constraints.  The Respondent further claims that the Complainant's MX record argument is speculative. The Respondent offers domain hosting invoices and a screen capture showing no email messages had been sent from the Disputed Domain Name. 

 

DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS

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 the Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:

 

(1)       the disputed domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

 

(2)       the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and

 

(3)       the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The test under the first element of the UDRP typically involves a side-by-side comparison of the Disputed Domain Name and the textual components of the relevant trademark to assess whether the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name.  "[W]here a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark."  WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.1"), section 1.7.

 

The Complainant and its predecessor have established ownership of the SLURPEE trademarks.  Where the complainant holds a nationally or regionally-registered trademark or service mark, this prima facie satisfies the threshold requirement of having trademark rights for purposes of standing to file a UDRP case. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1.  The Disputed Domain Name <slurpbee.com> incorporates the entirety of Complainant's mark, plus the insertion of the letter "b" after the letter "p."  The addition of a single letter does nothing to change the obvious confusing similarity between the Disputed Domain Name and the Complainant's SLURPEE trademark.  Generally, a "domain name which consists of a variation of a trademark" is "considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element."  WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.9.

 

The Panel finds that the Complainant has established that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's SLURPEE trademark under Policy Paragraph 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant bears the burden of proving that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Name. Once the Complainant makes a prima facie showing on this element, the burden of production shifts to the Respondent to present evidence of rights or legitimate interests. See WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.1.  

 

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a non-exhaustive list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. The respondent may establish such rights or legitimate interests by demonstrating any of the following:

 

(i) before any notice to the respondent of the dispute, the respondent's use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

 

(ii) the respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name, even if it has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

 

(iii) the respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

 

The Complainant has made the required prima facie showing. The Disputed Domain Name maintains active MX records, which creates a reasonable concern that it could be used for email impersonation. Because the Disputed Domain Name does not resolve to an active website, there is no clear connection between the Disputed Domain Name and a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Although the Respondent stated that the website was active for a period of time in late 2025, the Panel has not found any evidence of that on the Internet Wayback Machine. The absence of records on the Wayback Machine does not mean that the website was not active; it only means that the Wayback Machine did not capture the website HTML code during that period of time. But it does explain why the Complainant may not have been aware of that.  Because the Complainant has made a prima facie showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name, the burden of production therefore shifts to the Respondent.

 

The Respondent has come forward with evidence and arguments to support the claim that he has rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. The Respondent relies on paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy, arguing that he made preparations to use the Disputed Domain Name for a bona fide offering of an online feed that distributes popular content.

 

The Respondent has submitted a declaration and documentary evidence that he took technical steps toward developing a website.  Most of this evidence was not public, so it is not surprising that the Complainant was unaware of it or that the Complainant was suspicious of the Respondent's intentions (especially since the Respondent configured the MX records to allow emails to be sent using the Disputed Domain Name). In particular, the Respondent has submitted a declaration and supporting documentary evidence that shows that the error page is a product of web development inactivity, not a front for phishing or impersonation using the Disputed Domain Name.  But this showing does not end the inquiry.  The question is not just whether the Respondent took steps to build something at the Disputed Domain Name, but whether those steps support a right or legitimate interest in using this particular domain name.

 

The Respondent's undated ChatGPT screen captures do not establish demonstrable preparations for a bona fide offering before notice of the dispute. The prompts that the Respondent used in his interactions with ChatGPT presupposed that the name of this project would be SLURPBEE; none of those interactions explain where the SLURPBEE name came from. The Respondent does not deny that he was aware of the famous SLURPEE trademark when he selected the name SLURPBEE. If anything, the evidence submitted supports an inference that the Respondent was aware of the SLURPEE trademark and specifically chose the SLURPBEE name in order to create, at the minimum, a connection in consumers' minds with the SLURPEE trademark.

 

It is true that the Respondent took some steps towards the development of this website. But that evidence is not enough; the Respondent also has to show that the domain name he intended to use for the website was one that he was entitled to use. That includes complying with the representation in paragraph 2 of the Policy that the registration and use of this domain name "will not infringe upon or otherwise violate the rights of any third party."  Here, the use of the SLURPBEE name appears, at the minimum, to constitute trademark dilution, and depending on how the Respondent intended to use the domain name, might also constitute trademark infringement.

 

The Respondent cites his registration of <slurpbee.app> and <beesip.me> to further argue that he has rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name, as part of his preparation for the "SlurpBee" project.  He argues that these registrations show a broader pattern of bee-themed domains. But none of that explains why he paired the word "slurp" with the word "bee."  The panel believes that a fair inference is that he selected this term because it would bring the SLURPEE trademark to mind.

 

As a general matter, "indications a respondent is targeting a complainant" would "undermine any claim to a right or legitimate interest". WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.10.1. Given the fame of the Complainant's trademark and the confusing similarity of the Disputed Domain Name, the Respondent's failure to provide a credible explanation for selecting "SLURPBEE" supports an inference of targeting.  The Respondent had ample alternative naming options that would fit into its bee theme, as evidenced by ChatGPT screen captures and the registration of <beesip.me>. The Respondent ultimately chose a name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark. This choice supports the inference that it was not accidental but rather was intended to capitalize on the Complainant's goodwill. 

 

Accordingly, and based on these fair inferences that can be taken from the record, as submitted, the Complainant has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy lists four circumstances where, if found by the Panel, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:

 

(i) circumstances indicating that Respondent has registered or has acquired the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the Domain Name registration to Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of its documented out of pocket costs directly related to the Domain Name; or

 

(ii) that Respondent has registered the Domain Name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

 

(iii) that Respondent has registered the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

 

(iv) that by using the Domain Name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent's website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's website or location or of a product or service on Respondent's website or location. 

 

These examples of bad faith registration and use are neither exhaustive nor exclusive. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.1.

 

In light of the Panel's finding that the Respondent likely had the Complainant and its SLURPEE trademark in mind when he selected the Disputed Domain Name, the Panel also finds that the Respondent registered and used the Disputed Domain Name with the intent to attract Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion for commercial gain, even if that confusion was only initial interest confusion.  See F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. ITWEB Domain Protection, WIPO Case No. D2008-0847. That finding is supported by the fact that the SLURPEE trademark is strong and famous, and by the similarity between the trademark and the Disputed Domain Name.  These facts support an inference of bad faith where the record also shows the absence of any conceivable good-faith use.  See WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.1.1.  

 

As noted above, the record does not show that the Respondent arrived at the Disputed Domain Name for reasons independent of the Complainant's mark. The Respondent's own explanation does not account for why he selected a domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant's famous SLURPEE trademark, particularly where many other names would have served the asserted theme.  Although the Respondent submitted evidence suggesting that the Disputed Domain Name was intended for a content aggregator website, not for a frozen beverage website, that does not undermine the initial interest confusion that would be caused by use of the Disputed Domain Name for the planned website.

 

The Respondent also submitted evidence that no emails had been sent from the website. That evidence does reduce the force of the Complainant's concern about the potential for inappropriate phishing emails, but it does not resolve the broader issue of the Respondent's targeting of the Complainant and its SLURPEE trademark.   

 

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name <slurpbee.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

 

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 <slurpbee.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from the Respondent to the Complainant.

 

 

 

David H. Bernstein, Panelist

Dated: July 16, 2026