Macuhealth-eyevitamins.store

The timeline behind macuhealth-eyevitamins.store

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.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION MacuHealth LP v. yan qing hua Claim Number: FA2601002200735 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 NAME The domain name at issue is <macuhealth-eyevitamins.store>, registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn). 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. Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 20, 2026; Forum received payment on January 20, 2026. On January 21, 2026, Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <macuhealth-eyevitamins.store> domain name is registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. 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 27, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese and English Written Notice of the Complaint setting a deadline of February 17, 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@macuhealth-eyevitamins.store. Also on January 27, 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 18, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Charles A. Kuechenmeister 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 a Response or any other submittal from Respondent. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: Language of Proceeding According to the registrar, the registration agreement is written in Chinese. Rule 11(a) provides that the language of the proceedings is the language of the registration agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the case. Complainant filed its Amended Complaint in English and requests that this proceeding be conducted in that language. Factors which previous panels have seen as important include potential unfairness or unwarranted delay in ordering translation of the pleadings and the Decision, and evidence showing that the respondent can understand the language of the complaint, the language of the domain name, the content on any web pages resolving from the domain name, and prior correspondence between the parties. In this case, the domain name is written in English and targets an English-language U.S.-based firm. Respondent is making no active use of the domain name—it resolves to an error page posted by the registrar (Complaint Exhibit 5). The website thus offers no enlightenment on the language issue. Accordingly, the only evidence bearing upon Respondent's proficiency in English is the fact that the domain name is written in English and targets a U.S.-based firm. While this may indicate some familiarity with English, it falls far short of demonstrating that Respondent is sufficiently proficient in English to be able to conduct an adversary administrative proceeding in that language. Nevertheless, the Written Notice of the Complaint, written in both Chinese and English, was served upon Respondent in accordance with Rules 1 and 2. Respondent has not submitted a Response or any indication that it desires to participate in this proceeding, in Chinese or otherwise. The Panel is not proficient in Chinese. Under these circumstances the Panel finds that the additional time and expense of proceeding in Chinese would be unwarranted inasmuch as the only party who might benefit from that has declined to participate. Adidas AG v. Daehyeon Kim, WIPO Case No. 2013-1904 ("In the present case, the Respondent waived any objection to proceeding in English by failing to respond to the Center's notice sent in both English and Korean."). For the reasons above set forth, this proceeding will be conducted in English. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant provides nutritional supplements that support eye health. It has rights in the MACUHEALTH mark based upon its registration of that mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Respondent's <macuhealth-eyevitamins.store> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the MACUHEALTH mark as it fully incorporates the entire mark, merely adding a hyphen, the phrase "eye vitamins," which enhances the confusing similarity, and the ".store" generic top-level domain (gTLD). Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. It is making no active use of the domain name but instead is passively holding it, it has engaged in typosquatting, it has engaged in combosquatting, it has not been commonly known by the domain name, and it is attempting to trade off of the goodwill associated with Complainant's mark. Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith. It has engaged in typosquatting, it registered the domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant and its mark, it is passing off as Complainant, it is passively holding the domain name, it registered the domain name using a privacy service, it registered the domain name to prevent Complainant from using a domain name reflecting its mark having engaged in a pattern of such conduct, and it is likely to use the domain name for some unknown deceitful purpose. B. Respondent Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted 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 a complainant to prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order cancelling or transferring a domain name: (1) the 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 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, pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules the Panel will decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations 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. Nevertheless, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory allegations unsupported by competent evidence. The Panel finds as follows with respect to the matters at issue in this proceeding: Identical and/or Confusingly Similar The MACUHEALTH mark was registered to Complainant with the USPTO (Reg. No. 3,655,528) on July 14, 2009 (USPTO registration certificate included in Complaint Exhibit 3). Complainant's registration of the MACUHEALTH mark establishes its rights in that mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Respondent's <macuhealth-eyevitamins.store> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the MACUHEALTH mark. It fully incorporates the mark, merely adding a hyphen, the phrase "eye vitamins" and a gTLD. Complainant's mark is clearly recognizable within the domain name. The changes described above do not distinguish the domain name from Complainant's mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Further, the addition of descriptive terms that relate to a complainant can actually enhance confusion. That is the case with the domain name involved here. The phrase "eye vitamins" describes Complainant's products. Adding this term to Complainant's mark in the domain name enhances the confusing similarity. For the reasons set forth above, the Panel finds that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the MACUHEALTH mark, in which Complainant has substantial and demonstrated rights. Rights or Legitimate Interests If a complainant makes a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden of production shifts to the respondent to come forward with evidence that it has rights or legitimate interests in it. If the respondent fails to come forward with such evidence, the complainant's prima facie evidence will be sufficient to establish that respondent lacks such rights or legitimate interests. If the respondent does come forward with such evidence, the Panel must assess the evidence in its entirety. At all times, the burden of proof remains on the complainant. Policy ¶ 4(c) lists the following three nonexclusive circumstances, any one of which if proven can demonstrate a respondent's rights or legitimate interests in a domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii): (i) The respondent has used or has made demonstrable preparations to use the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) the respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if the respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) the respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name because (i) it is making no active use of the domain name but instead is passively holding it, (ii) it has engaged in typosquatting, (iii) it has engaged in combosquatting, (iv) it has not been commonly known by the domain name, and (v) it is attempting to trade off of the goodwill associated with Complainant's mark. These allegations are addressed as follows: Complaint Exhibit 4 is an image of the page to which the domain name points. It has no substantive content apart from a message that the site cannot be found. There is no evidence that Respondent is currently making any active use of or preparing to use the domain name but instead it is passively holding it. This is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services as contemplated by Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use as contemplated by Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). Morgan Stanley v. Francis Mccarthy / Baltec Marine Llc, FA 1785347 (Forum June 8, 2018) ("both Domain Names resolve to a web site that shows the words, 'Not Found, The requested URL / was not found on this server.' ' Inactive holding of a domain name does not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."). Complainant alleges that by adding a hyphen at the end of its mark in the domain name, Respondent has engaged in typosquatting. Typosquatting has frequently been held to be evidence of a lack of rights or legitimate interests, but it is generally understood to consist of the intentional misspelling of a protected trademark to take advantage of typing errors made by Internet users seeking the web sites of the owners of the mark. The domain name exhibits no misspelling of the mark, and it is difficult to see how the hyphen at the end of the mark could somehow amount to a misspelling of the mark or take advantage of a typing error. Typosquatting is not proven. Complainant also argues that Respondent has engaged in combosquatting, which consists of combining a particular mark or brand with a generic or descriptive term to attract Internet users who attempt to navigate directly to a specific page within a brand owner's website. In support of this argument, Complainant submitted an article describing this practice as a form of cybersquatting.1 The article makes a good case for the fact that many users attempt to navigate directly to a specific page on a brand owner's site by combining the mark with a generic description that matches the particular web page they seek (called "evolved navigation"), e./g., American express gift card, craigslist Portland. The purpose of doing so is to short-cut to the desired page without having to navigate through the mark owner's larger website. The article also states that a fairly significant number of individuals are registering and using domain names designed to take advantage of this practice to lure Internet users to their infringing websites. As discussed above in the Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis, the domain name involved here intentionally adds terms to the mark that are designed to cause Internet users to believe that a resolving website will be a Complainant site focused specifically on one of its products, i.e., vitamins that support eye health. Registering and using a combosquatted domain name to attract Internet users away from their intended destination to an infringing website involves deceit and is wholly incompatible with any notion of a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate fair use. The WHOIS information provided to Forum by the registrar lists the named Respondent as the registrant of the domain name. This name bears no resemblance to the domain name. Evidence could, of course, in a given case demonstrate that the respondent is commonly known by a domain name different from the name in which it registered the domain name, e.g., the case of a domain name incorporating the brand name of a specific product offered by and associated with the respondent. In the absence of any such evidence, however, UDRP panels have consistently held that WHOIS evidence of a registrant name which does not correspond with the domain name is sufficient to prove that the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name. The Panel finds that Respondent has not been commonly known by the domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Complainant's argument that Respondent is attempting to trade on the goodwill associated with its mark is addressed in the Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith analysis. On the evidence presented, and in the absence of any evidence from Respondent, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) requires Complainant to prove that the domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith. Policy ¶ 4(b) sets forth a nonexclusive list of four circumstances, any one of which if proven would be evidence of bad faith use and registration of a domain name. They are as follows: (i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant which is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent's documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) the 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 the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the respondent's web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the respondent's web site or location or of a product of service on the respondent 's web site or location. The concept of bad faith as illustrated in the above four subparagraphs necessarily involves a subjective intent on the part of a respondent knowingly to trade upon the goodwill of the complainant. The respondent must intentionally have targeted the complainant's mark. Such subjective intent would in turn require that the respondent actually knew of the complainant or its rights in the relevant mark when it registered the domain name. In attempting to discern actual knowledge and a subjective bad faith intent, panels have looked at many different types of evidence, including but not limited to use of a domain name in direct competition with a trademark owner, impersonation, the parties operating in the same market segment, the parties being physically located in the same general geographic area, a pattern of bad faith conduct, actual prior association between or among the parties, the distinctive nature of the trademark, and the extent to which the trademark has been publicized and is known as a source indicator for the complainant. Unsupported allegations about a respondent's subjective intent are not evidence in this regard. Proving actual knowledge in cases where the respondent defaults and is making no active use of a domain name is challenging. Evidence of a trademark registration does not suffice, as constructive notice is not sufficient to prove actual knowledge. Complainants must present competent, persuasive evidence that the respondent had the requisite actual knowledge at the time of registration. In this case, Complainant submitted a screenshot of its website at <macuhealth.com> advertising its products and briefly describing the qualifications and experience of its scientific officer. Complainant submitted no evidence of the extent to which its mark has been publicized and is known generally as a source indicator for its products, or the extent of its sales and customer base. It did, however, submit evidence of a previous UDRP case in which Complainant obtained the transfer of a similar domain name from this Respondent, being MacuHealth LP v. yan qing hua FA 2188352 (Forum December 5, 2025). That case was filed on November 12, 2025, and decided on December 5, 2025, both of which dates precede Respondent's registration of the domain name involved here on December 13, 2025 (WHOIS printout submitted as Complain Exhibit 1 shows creation date). This demonstrates conclusively that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when it registered the domain name, and that it selected the domain name with the intent to target this Complainant. As discussed in the rights and legitimate interests analysis, Respondent is making no active use of the domain name but is passively holding it. This does not fit precisely within any of the scenarios listed in Policy ¶ 4(b) but that paragraph recognizes that mischief can manifest in many different forms and takes an open-ended approach to bad faith, listing some examples without attempting to enumerate all its varieties. The non-exclusive nature of Policy ¶ 4(b) allows for consideration of additional factors in an analysis for bad faith, and passively holding a confusingly similar domain name can be evidence of bad faith registration or use for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Telstra Corporation v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. 2000-0003 ("... the concept of a domain name 'being used in bad faith' is not limited to positive action; inaction is within the concept."). The mere fact of passive holding does not automatically result in a finding of bad faith, but as discussed above, Respondent has been shown to have registered the domain name in bad faith. Since the Policy requires a complainant to prove both registration and a continuing use in bad faith, the question next arises whether Respondent's passive holding of the domain name constitutes a continuing use in bad faith. The Policy requirement, "is being used in bad faith," can include passive use. Id. In this case, there is no evidence that Respondent is holding the domain name under any of the specific circumstances listed in Policy ¶ 4(b), so the question arises whether the facts present in this case support a finding of continuing bad faith use on some other basis. The Panel has already concluded that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant and the MACUHEALTH mark when it registered the domain name, and that knowledge certainly continues. Also, Respondent is holding the domain name, which is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark, without itself having any legitimate connection with Complainant. This in and of itself is evidence of bad faith. Pavillion Agency, Inc. v. Greenhouse Agency Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2000-1221 (finding that respondent's domain names to be "so obviously connected" to the complainant that "use or registration by anyone other than complainants suggests 'opportunistic bad faith'"). Finally, given the close similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark it is not possible to conceive of a plausible legitimate use of the domain name that would not infringe on Complainant's rights. The evidence persuades the Panel that Respondent's passive holding of the domain name constitutes a continuing use in bad faith within the meaning and for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Complainant alleges that Respondent registered the domain name to prevent Respondent from registering and using a domain name that corresponds to its marks and that it has engaged in a pattern of such conduct. There is no question that Respondent's registration of the domain name prevents Complainant from using it for its own purposes, and the previous UDRP decision described above furnishes the necessary evidence of a pattern of such conduct. Respondent's conduct fits within the circumstances described in Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) and is manifest evidence of bad faith. For the reasons above set forth above, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Because the forgoing amply supports a finding of bad faith registration and use, Complainant's arguments based upon passing off, use for a deceitful purpose and registration with a privacy service are not addressed. DECISION Complainant having established all three elements required under the Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <macuhealth-eyevitamins.store> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Panelist February 20, 2026 [1] FairWinds Partners, Combosquatting, The Business of Cybersquatting, Part 3 of 3, Perspectives, Vol. 3, Issue 9, 2008, submitted as Complaint Exhibit 6. 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.