Macu-health.shop

The timeline behind macu-health.shop

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

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

DECISION MacuHealth LP v. CIERRA JUNE Claim Number: FA2601002200715 PARTIES Complainant is MacuHealth LP ("Complainant"), represented by Jessica S. Sachs of Harness, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C., Michigan, USA. Respondent is CIERRA JUNE ("Respondent"), South Carolina, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <macu-health.shop>, registered with NameSilo, 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. Paul M. DeCicco, 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, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <macu-health.shop> domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameSilo, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameSilo, 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 January 23, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a 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@macu-health.shop. Also on January 23, 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 February 13, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco, 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. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant contends in part as follows: Complainant, MacuHealth LP is the owner of registrations for the MACUHEALTH mark. Complainant is a leading nutritional supplement manufacturer. Complainant's products are formulated with pure and stable ingredients that support eye health. Complainant manufactures, distributes and sells its patented MacuHealth and MacuHealth Plus products directed to macular health online and through local sales representative throughout the United States. Complainant has been using the MACUHEALTH mark since at least as early as 2008. Complainant operates a webpage at https://www.macuhealth.com/. Confusing similarity. Complainant's registrations and extensive use of the MACUHEALTH mark for MacuHealth products sufficiently establish its rights in the mark pursuant to ICANN's Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy ("Policy") ¶ 4(a)(i). The at-issue domain name fully incorporates the MACUHEALTH® mark, merely adding a hyphen between the "MACU" and "HEALTH" components of the MACUHEALTH trademark, and adding the required generic top-level domain identifier, ".shop." The incorporation of a trademark in its entirety into a domain name is sufficient to establish that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a registered trademark. Respondent has introduced a typographical error into Complainant's MACUHEALTH mark by adding a hyphen "-" to break up the components of the mark. However, this change does nothing to distinguish the domain name from Complainant's MACUHEALTH mark or prevent the domain name from being confusingly similar to Complainant's MACUHEALTH mark. Respondent has introduced a typographical error into Complainant's MACUHEALTH mark by adding a hyphen "-" to break up the components of the mark. However, this change does nothing to distinguish the Infringing Domain from Complainant's MACUHEALTH® mark or prevent the domain name from being confusingly similar to Complainant's MACUHEALTH mark. The at-issue domain name was registered on December 13, 2025. Complainant's oldest active U.S. registration for the trademark MACUHEALTH issued in 2009, pre-dating the registration of the at-issue domain name by at least 15 years. Rights to or Legitimate Interests. At present, the at-issue domain name resolves to an inactive Shopify webpage. Respondent is attempting to divert web traffic to the <macu-health.shop> webpage by using a domain name that constitutes typosquatting, i.e., by including a hyphen into the MACUHEALTH® mark. Such action is evidence that Respondent lacks any legitimate rights in the domain name. Additionally, Respondent's failure to make active use of a confusingly similar domain name is evidence that Respondent has not made a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Therefore, Respondent's at-issue domain name, which is inactive and passively held by resolving only to an unavailable Shopify webpage fails as a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Using another entity's trademark to divert traffic to the webpage at a domain name that is confusingly similar to that trademark is not a legitimate use and does not create rights or legitimate interest in the domain name for the registrant. Respondent's use of the domain name <macu-health.shop> – which does not resolve to an active website – qualifies as neither a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(iii). The WHOIS record initially available for <macu-health.shop> shows "User #3da4285e Privacy" for the Registrant Name and "See PrivacyGuardian.org" for the Registrant. However, the revealed WHOIS record shows "CIERRA JUNE" as the Registrant's Name. Therefore, there remains nothing in the WHOIS record for <macu-health.shop> or on the webpage to which the domain name resolves to indicate that Respondent is legitimately commonly known as, operating a business as, or advertising as "Macu-Health." In the absence of evidence submitted by the respondent, the WHOIS record is the sole piece of relevant evidence when determining what a respondent is commonly known as. Further, Respondent is not and did not become commonly known as "Macu-Health" by registering the domain name with the privacy service. These facts strongly suggest that Respondent is attempting to trade on the goodwill associated with the MACUHEALTH mark by using a confusingly similar domain name. Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name <macu-health.shop> under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. Registered and used in Bad Faith. Respondent both registered and is using the domain name <macu-health.shop> in bad faith. Respondent's registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant's MACUHEALTH mark in order to divert Internet traffic to Respondent's webpage evidences a clear intent to trade upon the goodwill associated with Complainant's MACUHEALTH mark. The domain name does not resolve to an active webpage. Instead, Respondent is simply passively holding the domain name <macu-health.shop>. The at-issue domain name does not resolve to an active webpage. Instead, Respondent is simply passively holding the domain name <macu-health.shop>, which previous panels have found to be in bad faith. Respondent's use of typosquatting conduct in registration and use of the Infringing Domain supports that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's MACUHEALTH® mark upon registration. At best, Respondent is attempting to create a false association with Complainant by registering and using a domain name that includes the registered trademark MACUHEALTH and at worst is attempting to pass itself off as Complainant or using the at-issue domain name to prevent Complainant from using its own marks. This intent to disrupt Complainant's business is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). In addition, Respondent registered the domain name using a privacy service. In the commercial context, the registration of a domain name using a privacy service raises a rebuttable presumption of bad faith. Further, Respondent CIERRA JUNE has been named as a respondent in at least six (6) UDRP decisions – all adverse to Respondent. Notably, three (3) adverse decisions are in favor of Complainant against a similar domain name registration and use by Respondent. Also, the remaining three (3) adverse decisions are in favor of a complainant in a similar business as Complainant. It is thus evident that Respondent is targeting Complainant and the MACUHEALTH mark for cybersquatting and deceptive internet activities. Based on these adverse decisions, Respondent is certainly a repeat offender with a pattern of domain name abuse suggesting bad faith and targeting Complainant and its nutritional supplement products – as well as those of other third parties. The business model based upon use of an infringing domain name to attract users to a respondent's domain name is clear evidence that a respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Respondent has engaged in passive holding and is using the MACUHEALTH® mark as the sole dominant portion of the at-issue domain name to attract users to an inactive webpage. Respondent is likely relying on users to believe the domain name <macu-health.shop> is associated with Complainant for unknown deceitful purposes, which is clear evidence of bad faith registration and use. From the above, it is evident that Respondent's registration and use of the domain name falls squarely within the parameters of ICANN Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant has trademark rights in the MACUHEALTH mark. Complainant's rights in MACUHEALTH predate Respondent's registration of <macu-health.shop>. Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant nor authorized to use Complainant's trademarks in any capacity. Respondent holds the at-issue domain name passively. 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 at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights. Complainant's ownership of a USPTO registration for MACUHEALTH is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant's rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Target Brands, Inc. v. jennifer beyer, FA 1738027 (Forum July 31, 2017) ("Complainant has rights in its TARGET service mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) by virtue of its registration of the mark with a national trademark authority, the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO")."). Respondent's <macu-health.shop> domain name consists of a hyphenated version of Complainant's MACUHEALTH trademark where a insignificant hyphen is inserted into Complainant's mark. The domain name concludes with the confusing similarity analysis irrelevant ".shop" top-level. The differences between Complainant's trademark and the at-issue domain name fail to distinguish Respondent's domain name from Complainant's MACUHEALTH trademark. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent's <macu-health.shop> domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights under Policy ¶ 4 (a)(i). See Acme Lift Company, L.L.C. v. VistaPrint Technologies Ltd, FA 1607039 (Forum Apr. 11, 2015) (stating: "Where a respondent has created a domain name in an effort to visually deceive Internet users via a simple misspelling (and when such misspellings are visually similar to the mark), a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) is appropriate."); see also, Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognizable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element."); see also, Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Domain Administrator / Registry Services, LLC, FA 2038314 (Forum July 26, 2023) ("The addition of a gTLD fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."). Rights or Legitimate Interests Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant's prima facie showing acts conclusively. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity and as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name. See Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA 1620789 (Forum Jun. 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the at-issue domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark into any domain name). The WHOIS information for <macu-health.shop> leads to identifying the registrant behind the domain name's privacy service as "CIERRA JUNE" and the record contains no evidence that tends to prove that Respondent is commonly known by <macu-health.shop>. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶4(c)(ii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name). Respondent holds the at-issue domain name passively. Respondent's <macu-health.shop> domain name fails to address an active website and instead returns a system error message indicating that "this store is not available." Passively holding a confusingly similar at-issue domain name is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Dell Inc. v. link growth / Digital Marketing, FA 1785283 (Forum June 7, 2018) ("Respondent's domain names currently display template websites lacking any substantive content. The Panel finds that Respondent has does not have rights or legitimate interests with respect of the domain name per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii)."). Given the foregoing, Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in respect of <macu-health.shop>. Registration and Use in Bad Faith As discussed below without being exhaustive, Respondent acted in bad faith. Respondent's at-issue domain name fails to address any substantive content and can thus be considered inactive. Respondent's passive holding of the <macu-health.shop> domain name disrupts Complainant's business and demonstrates bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶4(b)(iii). See Regions Bank v. Darla atkins, FA 1786409 (Forum June 20, 2018) ("Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶4(a)(iii) because Respondent uses the domain name to host an inactive website."); see also, Solar Turbines v. Ogunade (Forum FA 1811640) (". . . Respondent inactively holds the <solarsturbines.com> domain name, thereby supporting a finding of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶4(a)(iii)."). Next, Respondent has suffered multiple prior adverse UDRP decisions. Respondent was named as a respondent in multiple UDRP decisions. three of which held for Complainant against a similar domain name registration and its use by Respondent. The remaining three decisions held in favor of a complainant in a similar business as Complainant. Respondent's recurrent cybersquatting reveals a pattern of domain name abuse and is evidence of Respondent's bad faith in the instant case under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Tommy John, Inc. v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, FA 1878688 (Forum Feb. 6, 2020) (finding bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) where the respondent had been subject to numerous UDRP proceedings where panels ordered the transfer of disputed domain names containing the trademarks of the complainants). Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the MACUHEALTH mark when Respondent registered <macu-health.shop> as a domain name. Respondent's actual knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant's MACUHEALTH trademark and from Respondent's multiple prior adverse UDRP proceedings involving Complainant. Respondent's registration and use of a confusingly similar domain name with knowledge of Complainant's rights in MACUHEALTH further demonstrates Respondent's bad faith. See Lemon Inc. v. Sumer Singh, FA 2110519 (Forum Sept. 5, 2024 ("registration of a disputed domain name with actual knowledge of another's trademark rights is sufficient to establish bad faith, and can be shown by the notoriety of the mark and the use the Respondent makes of the disputed domain name"); see also, Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name); see also, Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name). 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 <macu-health.shop> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Paul M. DeCicco, 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.