Macuforhealth.online, Macutohealth.store

The timeline behind macuforhealth.online

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION MacuHealth LP v. yan qing hua Claim Number: FA2601002200710 PARTIES Complainant is MacuHealth LP ("Complainant"), represented by Jessica S. Sachs of Harness, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C., Michigan, USA. Respondent is yan qing hua ("Respondent"), China. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES The domain names at issue are <macuforhealth.online> and <macutohealth.store>, (the "Domain Names") registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn). PANEL The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Dawn Osborne as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 20, 2026; Forum received payment on January 20, 2026. On January 20, 2026, Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <macuforhealth.online> and <macutohealth.store> 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 January 23, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese and English Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 12, 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@macuforhealth.online, postmaster@macutohealth.store. Also on January 23, 2026, 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 February 13, 2026 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Dawn Osborne 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 THE PROCEEDING Bearing in mind that the Domain Names both contain words in English and the Respondent has been involved in other UDRP proceedings including with the Complainant conducted in English, pursuant to UDRP Rule 11 (a) the Panel finds that persuasive evidence has been adduced by Complainant to suggest the likely possibility that the Respondent is conversant and proficient in the English language and the Panel holds that the proceedings can continue in English without prejudice to the Respondent. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant The Complainant's contentions can be summarised as follows: The Complainant is the owner of the mark MACUHEALTH registered, inter alia, in the USA for herbal supplements since 2009. It owns and operates its web site at <macuhealth.com>. The Domain Names registered in 2025 are confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark including it in its entirety and only adding the generic word 'from' or 'to' and the gTLDs .online or .store neither of which prevents this confusing similarity. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names, is not commonly known by them, and is not authorised by the Complainant. The Domain Names have not been used so there is no bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate non commercial use. It is registration and use in bad faith diverting and confusing Internet users and disrupting the Complainant's business in full knowledge of the Complainant and its rights. The Respondent has been the subject of several adverse decisions under the UDRP including those concerning the mark of the Complainant showing a pattern of bad faith activity. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The Complainant is the owner of the mark MACUHEALTH registered, inter alia, in the USA for herbal supplements since 2009. It owns and operates its web site at <macuhealth.com>. The Domain Names registered in 2025 have not been used. The Respondent has been the subject of other adverse decisions under the UDRP including those containing the mark of the Complainant showing a pattern of bad faith activity. 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 Domain Names consist of the Complainant's MACUHEALTH mark (registered, inter alia, in the USA since 2009 for herbal supplements) the generic words 'from' or 'to' and the gTLDs .online or .store. Previous panels have found confusing similarity when a respondent merely adds a generic term to a Complainant's mark. See PG&E Corp. v Anderson, D2000-1264 (WIPO Nov. 22, 2000)(finding that respondent does not by adding common descriptive or generic terms create new or different marks nor does it alter the underlying mark held by the Complainant). Accordingly the Panel agrees that the addition of the generic words 'from' or 'to' to the Complainant's mark does not prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Names or either of them and the Complainant's trade mark pursuant to the Policy. The gTLDs .store or .online do not serve to distinguish a domain name from a complainant's mark. See Red Hat Inc v Haecke FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the redhat.org domain name is identical to the complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark). Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Names are both confusingly similar for the purposes of the Policy with a mark in which the Complainant has rights. As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark. There is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Names or either of them. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA 1574905 (Forum Sept.17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark). There has been no use of the Domain Names. See Hewlett-Packard Co. v Shemesh, FA 434145 (Forum April 20, 2005)(Where the panel found inactive use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy 4(c)(i). ) The Respondent has not answered this Complaint and has not rebutted the prima face case evidenced by the Complainant as set out herein. As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Names or either of them and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy. Registration and Use in Bad Faith The overriding objective of the Policy is to curb the abusive registration of domain names in circumstances where the registrant seeks to profit from or exploit the trade mark of another. Passive holding of a domain name containing a well known mark is an indication of bad faith registration and use. See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2000). The Respondent has been the subject of other adverse UDRP decisions relating to trade marks of third parties including the Complainant's mark. Bad faith may be established through a pattern of registration and use of domain names. See Stevens v Modern Ltd. -Cayman Web Dev., FA 250005 (Forum May 17, 2004) As such, the Panel holds that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Names were registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy. 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 <macuforhealth.online> and <macutohealth.store> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Dawn Osborne, Panelist Dated: February 13, 2026 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

Source of record: FORUM . Reproduced for research; FORUM is the authoritative source.