April 16, 2014

By the Numbers: 7-Eleven Files 2 Trademark Lawsuits in Middle District of Georgia against 9 Total Defendants Regarding 6 Accused Sites

Seven may not be a such lucky number, after all, for convenience store operators that have been using the name “7-SEVEN” for their stores in Macon, Georgia.

On March 11, 2012, 7-Eleven, Inc. (“7-Eleven”) filed two complaints in the Macon Division of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia against various defendants for trademark infringement and dilution, unfair competition, and related state law claims.

Its complaints assert that 7-Eleven, “since at least as early as”: (i) 1946, has used its mark 7-ELEVEN; and (ii) 1967, has offered gasoline under that mark.  7-Eleven alleges that there are presently over 7,000 convenience stores using the 7-ELEVEN mark, many of which offer gasoline and other vehicle-related products.  7-Eleven also claims trademark rights to what it calls its “7-Eleven Striped Mark,” pictured below.

7-Eleven alleges that its “name, mark, and logo, and 7-Eleven Striped Mark have became famous and extremely well known among consumers, and have acquired a strong secondary meaning signifying 7-Eleven long before the acts of the defendants complained of herein.”

7-Eleven v. Popli, et al.

In the first of its two complaints, 7-Eleven identifies the following Macon locations as convenience stores using the 7-SEVEN logo pictured below:

·         4765 Riverside Drive;

·         1290 Gray Highway;

·         1904 Shurling Drive; and

·         2760 Montpelier Avenue.


Additionally, 7-Eleven charges that the Shurling Drive location uses the striped design shown below, which amounts to “simulating the 7-Eleven Striped Mark.”

7-Eleven v. Kaur, et al.

In the second of its complaints, 7-Eleven adds an allegation that it has frequently used its logo in a monochromatic variety, such as shown at the right.  It then identifies two additional Macon locations using the same 7-SEVEN logo shown above regarding thePopli lawsuit:

·         3590 Napier Avenue; and

·         3609 Pio Nono Avenue.

7-Eleven’s complaint then depicts the gasoline pump and canopy shown below, which it alleges defendants are using at the Pio Nono location, and which it characterizes as another simulation of its 7-ELEVEN mark and logo.


A March 18, 2013 report by The Telegraph quoted one of the defendants named in the Kaur lawsuit as stating: “‘anybody can tell’ the difference between the 7-Eleven and 7-SEVEN logos even though he admits they are similar,” and “‘It’s not the same.’”


The complaints both request injunctive and monetary relief, including enhanced damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs.


The cases are: (1) 7-Eleven, Inc. v. Madan Popli, et al., No. 5:13-cv-0085-MTT; and (2) 7-Eleven, Inc. v. Navpreet Kaur, et al., No. 5:13-cv-0086-MTT.  Both cases were filed 03/11/13 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, Macon Division, and are assigned to U.S. District Judge Marc T. Treadwell.

Copyright © 2014 Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC. All Rights Reserved.

About the Author

Established in Winston-Salem in 1876, the firm now comprises 550 lawyers in 14 offices, including Winston-Salem, Charlotte, Greensboro, Research Triangle Park, Raleigh, NC; Atlanta, GA; Charleston, Columbia, Greenville, SC; Tysons Corner, VA; Washington, DC; Baltimore, MD, Wilmington, DE and Silicon Valley, CA..  A full-service business law firm, Womble Carlyle serves a wide range of regional, national and international clients in industries that include health care, life sciences, financial services, commercial real estate, intellectual property/patent, and telecommunications,...


Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.