Macuhealth.click

The timeline behind macuhealth.click

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. MCLEOD GERMAINE JAMIIL Claim Number: FA2604002214799 PARTIES Complainant is MacuHealth LP ("Complainant"), represented by Jessica S. Sachs of Harness, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C., Michigan, USA. Respondent is MCLEOD GERMAINE JAMIIL ("Respondent"), Texas, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <macuhealth.click>, 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. Debrett G. Lyons as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on April 8, 2026; Forum received payment on April 8, 2026. On April 8, 2026, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <macuhealth.click> 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 April 13, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 4, 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.click. Also on April 13, 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 May 5, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Debrett G. Lyons 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 asserts trademark rights in MACUHEALTH which it uses in connection with nutritional supplements for macular health. Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark. Complainant submits that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name because it is not known by the domain name, has not been authorized to use the trademark and has not used the domain name. Complainant asserts that Respondent registered the domain name in bad faith with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights and used it in bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The factual findings pertinent to the decision in this case are that: 1. Complainant is the owner of United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") Reg. No. 3,655,528, for MACUHEALTH, registered on July 14, 2009; 2. Respondent registered the domain name on March 11, 2026, using a privacy service to mask its identity; and 3. the domain name resolves to an inactive webpage. 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. Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold enquiry—a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark. It is well established by decisions under this Policy that a trademark registered with a national authority is evidence of trademark rights (see, for example, Mothers Against Drunk Driving v. phix, FA 174052 (Forum Sept. 25, 2003)). The Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in MACUHEALTH since it provides proof of its registration of that mark with the USPTO, a national trademark authority. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to the trademark. It is well established by decisions under the Policy that a domain name composed of a trademark plus gTLD is regarded as identical to that trademark (see, for example, Am. Int'l Group, Inc. v. Domain Admin. Ltd., FA 1106369 (Forum Dec. 31, 2007) holding that the gTLD can be disregarded for the purposes of comparison under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy; Abt Elecs., Inc. v. Ricks, FA 904239 (Forum Mar. 27, 2007) ("The Panel also finds that Respondent's <abt.com> domain name is identical to Complainant's ABT mark since addition of a generic top-level domain ("gTLD") is irrelevant when conducting a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis.")). The Panel accordingly finds that Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate rights or legitimate interests to a domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy: (i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or 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) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) you are 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 need only make out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, after which the onus shifts to Respondent to rebut that case by demonstrating those rights or interests (see, for example, Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, WIPO Case No. D2000‑0624). There is no suggestion that Respondent might be commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent has no trademark rights and the Panel accepts Complainant's submission that Respondent has no permission to use the trademark. The evidence provided shows that the domain name is not in use. The Panel finds that a prima facie case has been made (see, for example, Thermo Electron Corp. v. Xu, FA 713851 (Forum July 12, 2006) finding that the respondent's non-use of the disputed domain names demonstrates that the respondent is not using the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)). The onus shifts to Respondent and in the absence of a Response, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or interests and so finds that Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant must prove both that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith and used in bad faith. Further guidance on that requirement is found in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, which sets out four circumstances, any one of which is taken to be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith if established. The four specified circumstances are: (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 who 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 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, respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to respondent's website 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 website or location or of a product or service on the site or location. The Complaint cites paragraphs 4(b)(ii), (iii) and (iv) but the evidence does not provide a compelling case for their application. Accordingly, Complainant must establish, as separate matters, registration in bad faith and use in bad faith. Complainant faces the hurdle that it must prove use in bad faith in circumstances where, as stated, there is no evidence of use of the domain name. The highest case Complainant has put forward is that based on so-called, passive holding in bad faith. In support, Complainant cites the case of MacuHealth LP v. liu chuan bang FA 2183604 (Forum November 13, 2025), another case where the disputed domain name had not been used, but the decision carries almost no reasoning and does not assist the Panel. The leading case on "passive holding" is Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 ("Telstra") where the panel posed the question: "what circumstances of inaction (passive holding) other than those identified in paragraphs 4(b)(i), (ii) and (iii) can constitute a domain name being used in bad faith?", concluding that "the question can only be answered in respect of the particular facts of a specific case", whereafter the panel paid regard to circumstances showing that (i) the complainant's trademark was widely known, (ii) the respondent had provided no evidence of any actual or contemplated good faith use by it of the domain name, (iii) the respondent has taken active steps to conceal its identity and had provided false contact details, and (iv) it was not possible to conceive of any plausible use of the domain name by the respondent that would not be illegitimate in the sense of infringing complainant's rights. The WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, was updated to iteration 3.1 in February 2026 ("Overview 3.1") with a preamble outlining some of the changes. Under "Passive Holding" it states that "[t]he updated Overview text clarifies the original test underpinning this legal doctrine and explains the contours of the "implausibility" test applies in subsequent cases. Paragraph #3.3 of Overview 3.1 then essentially qualifies what had gone before by adding that: "Taking the above [Telstra ] factors into consideration, panels assess the overall plausibility of any (claimed) good faith use to which the domain name may be put in light of the composition of the domain name in relation to the relevant mark, such that, the more arbitrary or distinctive a mark the less plausible a claimed non-infringing good faith use is likely to be, and vice versa." In view of Respondent's failure to submit a Response, the Panel may draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Complaint does not carry any evidence to show that the trademark is widely known. The Panel notes that USPTO Reg. No. 3,655,528 was filed in March 2008 and that it claimed 2008 as the first use in commerce. That first use date of the trademark is not, without more, proof of common law rights, or of the mark being "widely known", but it lends credibility to Complainant's uncontradicted assertion that the mark has been used continuously for almost 30 years. Other than as a reference to Complainant and its business, the trademark has no ordinary meaning which would render it capable of nominative, fair use. Accordingly, in the absence of a Response, and having regard to what has been said in relation to the second element, the Panel draws the inference that Respondent was aware of Complainant and its trademark when it registered the domain name and did so in bad faith. Further, it concealed its identity. Most likely it has given false contact details. As noted above, Telstra observed that proof of use in bad faith is case specific, and the Panel here is influenced by the fact that it is difficult to conceive of any good faith use that could be made of the domain name. For these reasons the Panel finds that Complainant has shown passive holding in bad faith and so has not shown "use" in bad faith (see, for example, King's Hawaiian Holding Company, Inc. v. Glen Demiri, FA 2204938 (Forum March 12, 2026)). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has established the third and final element 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 <macuhealth.click> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Debrett G. Lyons, Panelist Dated: May 6, 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.