Macuhealths.site

The timeline behind macuhealths.site

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. CIERRA JUNE Claim Number: FA2602002204928 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 <macuhealths.site>, 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. Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 11, 2026; Forum received payment on February 11, 2026. On February 12, 2026, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <macuhealths.site> 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 February 16, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 9, 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@macuhealths.site. Also on February 16, 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 March 10, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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 i) Complainant is a leading nutritional supplement manufacturer. MACUHEALTH products are formulated with pure and stable ingredients designed to support eye health. Complainant has used the MACUHEALTH mark since at least 2009. Complainant establishes rights in the MACUHEALTH mark based on its registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 3,655,528, registered on July 14, 2009). The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's MACUHEALTH mark because it incorporates the MACUHEALTH mark in its entirety, merely adding the letter "s" to the end of the MACUHEALTH trademark and adding the required generic top-level domain identifier ".site." ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and Complainant has not licensed or authorized Respondent to use the MACUHEALTH mark. Additionally, Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, as Respondent is clearly attempting to mislead consumers into believing that the products sold on the website associated with the disputed domain name are genuine MACUHEALTH products affiliated with Complainant, when in fact they are not. Even if Respondent were an authorized distributor or representative of Complainant, which it is not, Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. iii) Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent is attempting to create a false association with Complainant by registering and using a domain name that incorporates the registered trademark MACUHEALTH, and is attempting to pass itself off as Complainant or is using the disputed domain name to prevent Complainant from using its own marks. This intent to disrupt Complainant's business constitutes evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). The disputed domain name is an instance of typosquatting resulting from typographically altering the trademark MACUHEALTH to include the letter "s" at the end of the trademark to create the incorrect spelling MACUHEALTHS. Such conduct demonstrates Respondent's bad faith in registering and using the disputed domain name. Respondent has engaged in a pattern of registering and using domain names in bad faith, as Respondent has been named as a respondent in at least seven (7) UDRP decisions, all adverse to Respondent. By using the disputed domain name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent's website by creating a likelihood of confusion, as well as actual confusion, with Complainant's MACUHEALTH mark. Respondent's actual knowledge of Complainant's rights is evidenced by the use of Complainant's MACUHEALTH products and marks on the website, which is clearly designed to confuse consumers. B. Respondent Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS 1. The disputed domain name was registered on January 31, 2026. 2. Complainant has established rights in the MACUHEALTH mark based on its registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 3,655,528, registered on July 14, 2009). 3. On the website resolving from the disputed domain name, Respondent attempted to pass itself off as Complainant by including text and images from Complainant's official website, such as details and photographs related to Complainant's MACUHEALTH branded products. 4. Following trademark infringement and Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) takedown notices submitted to the hosting provider regarding Respondent's website, the disputed domain name appears to have become inactive, and the associated website has been disabled. 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 asserts rights in the MACUHEALTH mark based on its registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 3,655,528, registered on July 14, 2009). Registration of a mark with the USPTO constitutes prima facie evidence of valid rights in a mark. In view of the evidence of registration of the MACUHEALTH mark submitted by Complainant, the Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <macuhealths.site> is confusingly similar to Complainant's MACUHEALTH mark because the disputed domain name incorporates the MACUHEALTH mark in its entirety, merely adding the letter "s" to the end of the MACUHEALTH trademark and adding the required generic top-level domain identifier ".site." The inclusion of the dominant portion of a complainant's mark, as well as a typosquatted version of the mark, does not defeat an argument of confusing similarity per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Rodrigue Wahib, (FA 1990964) (Forum May 9, 2022) ("[T]yposquatting is a practice whereby a domain name registrant deliberately introduces typographical errors or misspellings into a trademark and then uses the newly fashioned string in a domain name hoping that internet users will inadvertently type the malformed string when searching for products or services associated with the target trademark."). Therefore, the Panel finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's 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 under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Section 2.1, WIPO Overview 3.1 ("Where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element."). Complainant claims that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, as Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant's MACUHEALTH mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Where a Response is lacking, WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The unmasked WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as "CIERRA JUNE." Moreover, there is no evidence in the record suggesting that Respondent is authorized to use the mark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Complainant contends that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Complainant notes that a reseller has a limited right to use the trademarks of others, provided that certain criteria establishing legitimate interests as a reseller of genuine products are met. In the present case, Respondent fails to meet these criteria. Accordingly, Respondent's use of the MACUHEALTH marks is not bona fide. In the absence of any response, it is difficult to determine from the screenshot of the disputed domain name's website whether it was offering counterfeit goods or Complainant's genuine products. If Respondent's website is offering only Complainant's genuine goods, the question of fair use must be considered. The seminal case on this issue is Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., where the respondent was a reseller of the complainant's OKIDATA products. The respondent registered and used the domain <okidataparts.com> for that business. The panel in that case found that such use could qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services under the Policy if certain conditions were met: (i) the respondent must actually be offering the goods or services at issue, (ii) the respondent must use the site to sell only the trademarked goods (otherwise there is the possibility that the respondent is using the trademark in a domain name to bait consumers and then switch them to other goods), (iii) the site itself must accurately disclose the respondent's relationship with the trademark owner, and (iv) the respondent must not try to 'corner the market' in all relevant domain names, thus depriving the trademark owner of the ability to reflect its own mark in a domain name. The Panel notes that (i) Complainant asserts that it is unclear if Respondent is actually offering the goods and services at issue, (ii) it is unclear if Respondent is selling only the trademarked goods, (iii) Respondent's site does not accurately disclose its relationship with the trademark owner, and (iv) Respondent has tried to corner the market based on Respondent's webpage, as Respondent is attempting to register multiple MACUHEALTH domains not only to pass itself off as Complainant, but also to interfere with Complainant's ability to register domains related to or incorporating the MACUHEALTH name. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent's site does not accurately disclose its relationship with the trademark owner and that Respondent is attempting to register multiple MACUHEALTH domains not only to pass itself off as Complainant, but also to interfere with Complainant's ability to register domains related to or incorporating the MACUHEALTH name, and concludes that even if the products offered for sale at the disputed domain name's website were Complainant's genuine products, this does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor is it a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum Mar. 10, 2016) ("use of a domain to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a complainant's business does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)"). The Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case that arises from the considerations above. Collectively, these factors make out the prima facie case against Respondent. As Respondent has not filed a Response or attempted by any other means to rebut the prima facie case against it, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant contends that by using the disputed domain name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent's website by creating a likelihood of confusion, as well as actual confusion, with Complainant's MACUHEALTH marks. As previously noted, Respondent is using the disputed domain name for an online retail store offering dietary supplement products branded and advertised under Complainant's MACUHEALTH design marks. The Panel observes that the website resolving from the disputed domain name explicitly references the same goods offered by Complainant and uses Complainant's product images. In the absence of a Response, it is difficult to determine from the evidence whether the website is offering counterfeit goods or Complainant's genuine products. The Panel also notes that Respondent's website does not disclose any relationship with Complainant. Even if Respondent is offering only Complainant's genuine products, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv), with the intent to disrupt Complainant's business by diverting Internet users from Complainant's website to Respondent's website, thereby creating confusion with Complainant's MACUHEALTH marks for commercial gain by misleading consumers into believing that Respondent's website is connected to Complainant. See ZIH Corp. v. ou yang lin q, FA 1761403 (Forum Dec. 29, 2017) (finding bad faith where Respondent used the infringing domain name to disrupt Complainant's business by diverting Internet users from Complainant's website to Respondent's website where it offered competing printer products); see also Citadel LLC and its related entity, KCG IP Holdings, LLC v. Joel Lespinasse / Radius Group, FA 1579141 (Forum Oct. 15, 2014) ("Here, the Panel finds evidence of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) bad faith as Respondent has used the confusingly similar domain name to promote its own financial management and consulting services in competition with Complainant."). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv), and thus Complainant has satisfied the threshold per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Complainant further contends that Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the MACUHEALTH marks. While constructive knowledge is insufficient for a finding of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), registration of a disputed domain name with actual knowledge of another's trademark rights is sufficient to establish bad faith, and can be inferred from the notoriety of the mark and the use Respondent makes of the disputed domain name. See Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) ("The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize 'constructive notice' as sufficient grounds for finding Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it."); see also AutoZone Parts, Inc. v. Ken Belden, FA 1815011 (Forum Dec. 24, 2018) ("Complainant contends that Respondent's knowledge can be presumed in light of the substantial fame and notoriety of the AUTOZONE mark, as well as the fact that Complainant is the largest retailer in the field. The Panel here finds that Respondent did have actual knowledge of Complainant's mark, demonstrating bad faith registration and use under Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii)."). The Panel notes that Complainant is a premier nutritional supplement manufacturer. Complainant manufactures, distributes, and sells its patented MACUHEALTH and MACUHEALTH PLUS products directed to macular health online and through local sales representatives throughout the United States. Complainant has been using the MACUHEALTH mark since at least 2009, which is 17 years prior to the registration of the disputed domain name. As a result of such widespread, continuous, and prominent use, Complainant's mark has acquired significant goodwill and public recognition as a means by which the public identifies Complainant's goods and services prior to the registration of the disputed domain name. The Panel agrees and infers, due to the manner of use of the disputed domain name to mimic Complainant's website as well as the notoriety of Complainant's mark, that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the MACUHEALTH marks at the time of registering the disputed domain name, and thus the Panel finds bad faith registration of 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 <macuhealths.site> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist Dated: March 10, 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.