DECISION

 

7-Eleven, Inc. and 7-Eleven International, LLC v. Zain Abiden

Claim Number: FA2608002236739

 

PARTIES

Complainant is 7-Eleven, Inc. and 7-Eleven International, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by David J. Steele of Tucker Ellis, LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Zain Abiden ("Respondent"), Pakistan.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <7elevenclothing.com> (the "Disputed Domain Name"), registered with GoDaddy.com, 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 L. Kreider, Chartered Arbitrator (UK), as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum on August 2, 2026; Forum received payment on August 2, 2026.

 

On August 4, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <7elevenclothing.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. 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").

 

Complainant submitted a First Amended Complaint on August 6, 2026, following the Registrar's disclosure of the underlying registrant information.

 

On August 7, 2026, Forum served the First Amended Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 27, 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@7elevenclothing.com. Also on August 7, 2026, 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 August 28, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David L. Kreider 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: MULTIPLE COMPLAINANTS

The Complaint is brought jointly by 7-Eleven, Inc. and 7-Eleven International, LLC. Forum's Supplemental Rule 1(e) defines "The Party Initiating a Complaint Concerning a Domain Name Registration" as a "single person or entity claiming to have rights in the domain name, or multiple persons or entities who have a sufficient nexus who can each claim to have rights to all domain names listed in the Complaint." Panels treat related corporate entities that share an interest in the mark relied upon as a single complainant where a sufficient nexus is shown. See Sub-Zero, Inc. and Wolf Appliance, Inc. v. Rinat Bermileev, FA 2201553 (Forum Feb. 27, 2026). The nexus is made out here on the uncontested record: 7-Eleven International, LLC is described as a joint venture of 7-Eleven, Inc. and Seven-Eleven Japan; the two entities give a common address in Irving, Texas; and the registrations in evidence show the United States registrations for 7-ELEVEN held by 7-Eleven, Inc. and the United Kingdom registrations held by 7-Eleven International, LLC, so that each claims rights in the same mark. The Panel accepts that the Complainants are properly joined in this proceeding and refers to them collectively as "Complainant."

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant alleges:

 

That it has offered convenience store services and products to the general public, directly or through its licensees, since at least as early as 1927, and has grown from the world's first convenience store to over 84,000 stores across 19 countries and regions. Complainant owns the exclusive rights to the 7-Eleven trademarks and service marks and to the 7-Eleven trade name (collectively, the "7-Eleven Marks"), which it and its predecessors have used continuously and exclusively in the United States since 1946. Complainant sells 7-Eleven-branded apparel, including t-shirts, hoodies, jackets, and headwear, through its official online merchandise store at <7collection.com>, and operates its principal website at <7-eleven.com>.

 

That in addition to its common law rights, it owns numerous trademark registrations for the 7-Eleven Marks around the world, including in the United States and in the United Kingdom and the European Union, where Respondent appears to operate. Through decades of continuous use, billions of dollars in annual sales, and millions of dollars in annual advertising, the 7-Eleven Marks have become famous.

 

That the Disputed Domain Name <7elevenclothing.com> is confusingly similar to the 7-Eleven Marks because it misappropriates the mark, omitting only the hyphen between "7" and "Eleven" and adding the term "clothing" and the gTLD ".com." The omission of the hyphen does not affect the analysis, and the added term "clothing" describes goods Complainant itself sells under the marks, which adds to the confusion rather than reducing it.

 

That Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Respondent is not known as "7-Eleven" or "7elevenclothing," is not affiliated with Complainant, and has never been authorized to use the 7-Eleven Marks. The Disputed Domain Name resolves to a commercial website offering competing clothing goods, which is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, and to the extent the goods offered are counterfeit, that use is likewise not bona fide.

 

That Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. The 7-Eleven Marks had achieved worldwide fame long before Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name in 2024, and the marks are so closely connected with Complainant that registration by an unconnected party suggests bad faith. Respondent's use of the Disputed Domain Name to host a commercial website offering competing goods, and thereby to profit from confusion with the 7-Eleven Marks, constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), and the sale of likely counterfeit goods in competition with Complainant disrupts Complainant's business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Panel finds the following:

 

Complainant owns registered trademarks for the 7-ELEVEN mark used in connection with its convenience store services and related products. The registration certificates in the record show that the earliest United States registration for 7-ELEVEN in the record, Registration No. 896,654, issued on August 11, 1970 to Complainant's predecessor, for retail grocery store services, claiming first use in commerce at least as early as 1946, and that Complainant holds later United States registrations for the mark, including Registration No. 2,765,976, issued on September 23, 2003, which covers clothing in Class 25. A WIPO Global Brand Database report in the record lists sixteen United Kingdom registrations for 7-ELEVEN and 7 ELEVEN held by 7-Eleven International LLC, the earliest registered on July 10, 1998, and the record also contains European Union registrations for the mark held by the same entity. On the strength of those registrations, the length of Complainant's use since the 1940s, and the scale of its retail network as described in the record, the Panel finds that the 7-ELEVEN mark is widely known internationally. Screenshots in the record show that Complainant sells 7-Eleven-branded apparel through its online merchandise store at <7collection.com>.

 

The Registrar's verification and the WHOIS record show that the Disputed Domain Name <7elevenclothing.com> was registered on December 17, 2024, and that its registrant is Respondent, Zain Abiden, an individual giving an address in Gujranwala, Pakistan. There is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name or by 7-Eleven or any similar name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), and on the uncontested record Respondent has no license or authorization from Complainant.

 

Screenshots in the record show that the Disputed Domain Name resolves to an online store branded "7ELEVEN CLOTHING" (the "Respondent's Website"). The Respondent's Website offers t-shirts, short sets, polo shirts, swim shorts, jackets, and "trainers" under product names that reproduce or abbreviate the names of third-party luxury fashion houses, at "sale" prices well below those brands' usual retail prices, and describes its mission as making "high-end fashion accessible at prices that fit your budget." It advertises next-day delivery within the United Kingdom by Royal Mail and delivery to Ireland, accepts payment by Apple Pay, PayPal, Klarna, and bank transfer, and gives as its only contact details a WhatsApp number and a Gmail address. The website makes no reference to Complainant and carries no disclaimer of affiliation. Complainant contends that the goods are likely counterfeit; the record contains no test purchase or product examination, and the Panel makes no finding on that question, which is not necessary to the disposition of any element below. The Panel finds that the Respondent's Website is a commercial clothing storefront trading under Complainant's mark, offering goods of the same kind that Complainant sells under that mark, and that it is not authorized by Complainant.

 

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 Overview 3.1 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 established rights in the 7-ELEVEN mark through its United States, United Kingdom, and European Union registrations and its use of the mark in commerce over many decades. A nationally or regionally registered trademark prima facie satisfies the requirement that a complainant have rights in a mark for purposes of the first element. See WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 1.2.1.

 

The Disputed Domain Name <7elevenclothing.com> incorporates Complainant's 7-ELEVEN mark, omitting only the hyphen between "7" and "Eleven" and appending the descriptive term "clothing" and the gTLD ".com." The omission of the hyphen is a trivial variation that does not distinguish the Disputed Domain Name from the mark. See 7-Eleven, Inc. v. biez kaiya, FA 1892918 (Forum May 14, 2020) (finding that the omission of the hyphen between the number "7" and the word "Eleven" did not distinguish <7eleven-th.club> from the complainant's 7-Eleven Marks); 7-Eleven, Inc. v. Sophik, FA 2205371 (Forum Mar. 25, 2026) (finding <7elevenvip.com>, which omitted the hyphen and appended a generic term, confusingly similar to the 7-ELEVEN mark). Nor does the added word "clothing" prevent a finding of confusing similarity: the mark remains clearly recognizable within the Disputed Domain Name, and the added term describes goods that Complainant itself sells under the mark. See WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 1.8; JUUL Labs, Inc. v. The bee, FA 1972609 (Forum Dec. 13, 2021) ("The addition of a descriptive term and a gTLD does not distinguish a disputed domain name from a trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."). The gTLD ".com" is a technical requirement of registration and is disregarded. See WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 1.11.1.

 

The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's 7-ELEVEN mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name, at which point the burden of production shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests. See WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 2.1.

 

The WHOIS information identifies Respondent as "Zain Abiden," a name bearing no resemblance to the Disputed Domain Name, and nothing in the record indicates that Respondent has been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use the 7-Eleven Marks. See Novo Nordisk A/S v. aditi sharma, FA 2227366 (Forum July 9, 2026) (finding a respondent not commonly known by the disputed domain name where the WHOIS information listed an unrelated personal name and the complainant had not authorized use of its mark). Trading online as "7ELEVEN CLOTHING" does not assist Respondent: a name adopted by appropriating another's widely known mark does not make the appropriator "commonly known" by it.

 

Nor is Respondent's use of the Disputed Domain Name 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). The Respondent's Website is a commercial clothing store operating under Complainant's mark and selling apparel, goods that Complainant itself sells under the 7-ELEVEN mark. Appropriating a widely known mark to sell goods of the same kind trades on the mark owner's goodwill and creates a false impression of affiliation; it confers no legitimate interest. See Guitar Center, Inc. v. Eveline Simon, FA 2150637 (Forum May 14, 2025) (use of a confusingly similar domain name for a website purporting to sell products of the kind offered by the complainant is "neither 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)"); Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Lar David, FA 2221384 (Forum June 6, 2026) (a website offering goods or services that compete with the complainant "provides a false impression that the Respondent is affiliated with or authorized by Complainant").

 

Respondent has not submitted a Response or offered any evidence of rights or legitimate interests. The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name on December 17, 2024, more than half a century after Complainant's first United States registration of the 7-ELEVEN mark and more than a quarter of a century after the earliest United Kingdom registration in the record, the jurisdiction to which the Respondent's Website is directed. The 7-ELEVEN mark is widely known internationally, the Disputed Domain Name reproduces it with only the hyphen removed, and Respondent has coupled it with the word "clothing," a line of goods Complainant sells under the mark, to brand an online store. The only plausible inference is that Respondent knew of Complainant's mark when it registered the Disputed Domain Name and chose the name for its association with Complainant. See WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 3.1.4; 7-Eleven, Inc. v. Nguyen Minh Hoa, FA 2151829 (Forum June 5, 2025) (finding it improbable, given the fame and distinctive character of the 7-ELEVEN mark, that the registrant was unaware of the complainant and its mark when the domain name was chosen and registered); 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's use of the Disputed Domain Name confirms its purpose. The Respondent's Website uses Complainant's mark as its trading name and sells clothing, the very category of goods Complainant offers under the mark, for Respondent's own commercial gain. Internet users are likely to believe that the store is operated, sponsored, or endorsed by Complainant, and that confusion is one Respondent created and profits from. That is the circumstance described in Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). The diversion of consumers seeking Complainant's branded apparel to a competing store also disrupts Complainant's business within Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See True Value Company, L.L.C. v. Xu Yongqin, FA 2075718 (Forum Jan. 11, 2024) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv) where the respondent used the disputed domain name to pass off as the complainant and offer unauthorized or competing versions of its products); Kylie Jenner, Inc. v. Connor Kurtz / KING KYLIEE, FA 2186421 (Forum Dec. 2, 2025) (finding bad faith where the domain name resolved to a website offering unauthorized products in direct competition with the complainant).

 

The Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in 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 <7elevenclothing.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

David L. Kreider, Panelist

Dated: August 28, 2026