NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM

DECISION

MacuHealth LP v. Wang Yu Chen

Claim Number: FA2509002176385

PARTIES

Complainant is MacuHealth LP ("Complainant"), represented by Jessica S. Sachs of Harness, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C., Michigan, USA. Respondent is Wang Yu Chen ("Respondent"), China.

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <macuhealth.site>, registered with DNSPod, Inc.

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.

The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC as Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on September 11, 2025; Forum received payment on September 11, 2025.

On September 11, 2025, DNSPod, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <macuhealth.site> domain name is registered with DNSPod, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. DNSPod, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the DNSPod, Inc. 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 September 16, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese and English Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 6, 2025 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.site. Also on September 16, 2025, 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 October 7, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC 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.

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDING

According to the Registrar, the registration agreement for the Domain Name 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 Complaint with a Chinese and English Written Notice of the Complaint, but has submitted that English is a more appropriate language than Chinese in which to conduct the proceeding. When that question is being considered, it is established practice to take UDRP Rules 10(b) and (c) into consideration for the purpose of determining the language of the proceeding to ensure fairness and justice to both parties. Factors which previous panels have seen as important include 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, prior correspondence between the parties, and potential unfairness or unwarranted delay in ordering translation of the pleadings and the Decision. See Fair Isaac Corporation v. AKPOVO Chidiac, FA 2034648 (Forum Apr. 12, 2023) (finding panel has discretion to conduct proceedings in English contrary to registration agreement given evidence that respondent understands the language).

The Complainant relies on the following factors in support of English being the more appropriate language: English is the language of the domain name which incorporates a trademark in English that is registered to the Complainant's United States business; the website to which the domain name resolves is expressed in English and a lot of it is in quite advanced English; the website also includes an address in the United States and GMAIL addresses; the English language was also found to be an appropriate language in which to conduct a prior proceeding in Forum concerning a domain name similar to the present one and also incorporating the MACUHEALTH trademark. Moreover, if Chinese is to remain the language of the proceeding, it would involve a lot of time and cost in translating the papers into that language.

The Panel agrees with those submissions and finds for those reasons that English is a more appropriate language than Chinese in which to conduct the proceeding.

Accordingly, the proceeding will be conducted in the English language.

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant made the following contentions.

1. The Complainant is a United States company engaged in the provision of nutritional supplements for the support of eye health and has been so engaged since at least from 2008.

2. The Complainant provides its goods and services under its registered trademark for MACUHEALTH.

3. The Complainant acquired its registered trademark rights by virtue of its registration of the MACUHEALTH trademark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"), registration number 3655528, registered on July 14, 2009 ("the MACUHEALTH trademark").

4. The MACUHEALTH trademark has attracted substantial goodwill and is uniquely associated with the Complainant's goods and services and with the Complainant as a prominent provider of the foregoing goods and services.

5. The Respondent registered the <macuhealth.site> disputed domain name on August 21, 2025 ("the disputed domain name"), well after the Complainant had established its aforesaid trademark rights.

6. The disputed domain name embodies, without the consent of the Complainant, the MACUHEALTH trademark, with the addition of the generic Top Level Domain ".site".

7. The Respondent has caused the domain name to resolve to an English-language website that uses and prominently displays the Complainant's MACUHEALTH trademark and allows the user to buy what are held out as being genuine MACUHEALTH products of the Complainant.

8. The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the MACUHEALTH trademark.

9. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. That is so because:

(a) the Complainant has not given the Respondent any permission or other consent to use its trademark in a domain name or in any other way and the Respondent has no relationship with the Complainant either as a licensee or otherwise;

(b) the Respondent is attempting to trade on the goodwill associated with the MACUHEALTH trademark;

(c) the Respondent is using the domain name to divert web traffic from the Complainant's official website to its own website;

(d) the Respondent's website attempts to mimic the Complainant and its website and to pass itself off as and impersonate the Complainant and to that end has copied the Complainant's official website and used the Complainant's copyright images;

(e) the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii);

(f) the aforesaid use by the Respondent is not a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i);

(g) the aforesaid use by the Respondent is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii); and

(h) there is no other basis on which it could conceivably be contended that the Respondent has a right or legitimate interest in the domain name.

10. The Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. That is so because:

(a) the Respondent has registered a domain name virtually identical to the Complainant's MACUHEALTH trademark, impersonated and passed itself off as the Complainant and mimicked the Complainant's official website;

(b) the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant and its MACUHEALTH trademark, brand and products when it registered the domain name;

(d) the Respondent's activities have disrupted the Complainant's business within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii);

(e) the Respondent having registered the identical or confusingly similar disputed domain name, incorporating as it does the MACUHEALTH trademark without permission, and having used it for a website purporting to offer the Complainant's products, has generated confusion among internet users within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) to defraud internet users; and

(f) all of the acts, facts, matters and circumstances to be revealed by the evidence will show that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith and that there is no plausible circumstance under which the Respondent could legitimately have registered and used the disputed domain name.

The evidence will therefore establish that the Complainant has been able to make out all of the grounds it must establish and that it is entitled to the relief that it seeks.

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

FINDINGS

1. The Complainant is a United States company engaged in the provision of nutritional supplements for the support of eye health and has been so engaged since at least from 2008.

2. The Complainant provides its goods and services under its registered trademark for MACUHEALTH.

4. The Respondent registered the <macuhealth.site> disputed domain name on August 21, 2025 ("the disputed domain name").

5. The Respondent caused the disputed domain name to resolve to a website that targeted the Complainant, potential customers and clients and internet users in general, infringed and tarnished the Complainant's trademark, impersonated and passed itself off as the Complainant, and the Respondent purported to offer products held out to be genuine products of the Complainant and also sought personal information from internet users by means of apparent phishing.

6. By reason of the matters aforesaid, and as established by the evidence, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's MACUHEALTH trademark trademark, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and the disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.

7. Accordingly, the disputed domain name should be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant

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 the 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 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 first question that arises is whether the Complainant has rights in a trademark or service mark on which it may rely . The evidence has established that the Complainant provides its goods and services under its registered trademark for MACUHEALTH and that it had done so for several years prior to the registration of the disputed domain name by the Respondent and continuously since then. In particular, the Complainant acquired its registered trademark rights by virtue of its registration of the MACUHEALTH trademark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"), registration number 3655528, registered on July 14, 2009 ( "the MACUHEALTH trademark").

The trademark is registered with respect to herbal supplements, is current and is registered in the name of MACUHEALTH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, an associated entity of the Complainant.

All of the aforesaid facts have been established by documentary evidence that the Panel has examined and finds to be in order.

The Complainant has therefore established its trademark rights and hence its standing to institute this proceeding.

The next question that arises is whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's MACUHEALTH trademark. The traditional way of answering this question is to leave the Top Level Domain out of consideration, as all domain names must have one such extension and it does not inform internet users one way or the other as to whether the domain name is identical, or confusingly similar, to the relevant trademark. Applying that well-established principle, the domain name consists of nothing other than the trademark and it is therefore identical to the trademark. There may of course be cases where the Top Level Domain adds something to the meaning of the domain name, especially in the case of some of the new TLDs and that may well be so in the present case. But even applying that test, the domain name in this case is confusingly similar to the trademark. That is so because the dominant presence of the trademark in the domain name has the effect of invoking the goods and services of the Complainant provided under the trademark and, in the present case, purporting to providing them on a website, which is what the Respondent has attempted to do. Thus, applying these well-accepted principles, the disputed domain name is probably both identical and confusingly similar to the MACUHEALTH trademark.

The Complainant has thus made out the first of the three elements that it must establish as provided in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

Rights or Legitimate Interests

It is now well established that the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) and that, if the prima facie case is made out, the burden then shifts to the Respondent to show that it does have such rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)).

The Panel finds on the evidence that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the following considerations. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name on all of the grounds relied on by the Complainant, namely:

(a) the evidence is that the Complainant has not given the Respondent any permission or other consent to use its trademark in a domain name or in any other way and the Respondent has no relationship with the Complainant either as a licensee or otherwise; it could not, therefore, be argued that the domain name was registered with anything like the consent of the Complainant; thus the facts could not conceivably give rise to a right or legitimate interest on the part of the Respondent in the disputed domain name;

(b) the Respondent is attempting to trade on the goodwill associated with the MACUHEALTH trademark; clearly, the Respondent has rightly decided that the trademark has considerable goodwill and that it would therefore trade on it in an unprincipled way by deceiving internet users, pretending that it is the Complainant or is authorized by it and by attempting to make money from doing so; thus, registering and using a domain name as the Respondent has done, could not give rise to a right or legitimate interest in the very domain name used to carry out this deception;

(c) the Respondent is using the domain name to divert web traffic from the Complainant's official website to its own website; that is established by the evidence as it is clear that the Respondent's modus operandi has been to divert users away from the Complainant's official and genuine site to the Respondent's bogus site;

(d) the Respondent's website shows that it has attempted to mimic the Complainant and its website and to pass itself off as and impersonate the Complainant and to that end it has copied the Complainant's official website and used the Complainant's copyright images; this is the Complainant's principal submission and the crux of its case; the evidence in its support is contained in Exhibit 4 to the Complainant which is a screenshot of the Complainant's official website and Exhibit 5 which is a screenshot of the Respondent's offending website; it is plain from comparing the two, which the Panel has done, that the latter has been inspired by the former; the tone and general presentation, including the style of printing, is the same and has been copied and the products presented are the same; more particularly, the Respondent has simply plagiarised the presentation on the Complainant's site by Dr. Stringham, the Chief Scientific Office of Macuhealth; the Respondent's site also asserts that it is the Complainant and it has used the Complainant's trademark so many time that it is difficult to count them; it also promotes for sale what are clearly meant to be held out as the Complainant's genuine products; this is a classic case of impersonation and it makes out the Complainant's submission for passing off; finally, the Respondent's site makes a clear attempt to obtain by phishing personal information from internet users; such blatant copying and brazen phishing could not give rise to a right or legitimate interest in the domain name used to perpetrate such subterfuges;

(e) the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii); there is no evidence that the Respondent is known by the domain name either commonly or otherwise, and there is no evidence that the Respondent is known by any name other than its own, which is "Wang Yu Chen";

(f) the evidence shows that the aforesaid use of the domain name by the Respondent is not a bona fide offer of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and is not a legitimate, noncommercial or fair use within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii), as the user does not meet any of those criteria; and

(g) there is no other basis on which it could conceivably be contended that the Respondent has a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.

The Complainant has thus made out a persuasive and detailed case on the evidence for all of the grounds it relies on to show that the Respondent does not have a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.

All of these matters make out the prima facie case against the Respondent. The Respondent is in default and has not advanced any evidence or submissions to show that it could rebut the Complainant's contentions.

The Complainant has therefore made out the second of the three elements it must establish under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

It is clear that to establish bad faith for the purposes of the Policy, the Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith. It is also clear that the criteria set out in Policy ¶ 4(b) are not exclusive but that domain name proceedings may also rely on conduct that is bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression.

In view of the evidence discussed above, particularly Exhibits 4 and 5, which is equally as applicable to bad faith as it is to rights and legitimate interests and which it is not necessary to repeat here, it is clear that the Complainant has made out all of the grounds relied on. The Respondent has clearly been motivated by bad faith in the registration of the domain name and has continued in that conduct after its registration, showing bad faith use; the registration was, as was its use, clearly an attempt by the Respondent to use its domain name, incorporating as it does the Complainant's trademark, for a dishonest and apparently financial objective, as it resolves to a website that passes itself off as one that either is that of the Complainant one authorized by it which it clearly was not and uses it to pretend that the products offered on the site are genuine products of the Complainant which the evidence shows they are not and the evidence also shows that they are probably counterfeit. It is therefore clear from the evidence that, as the Complainant has submitted:

(a) the Respondent has registered a domain name identical to the Complainant's MACUHEALTH trademark, impersonated and passed itself off as the Complainant and mimicked the Complainant's official website; this has already been shown to have been established by the evidence;

(b) the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant and its MACUHEALTH trademark, brand and products when it registered the domain name; as the Complainant points out, this conclusion must be drawn from the conjunction of the registration of a confusingly similar domain name, the similarity between the trademark and the domain name, the long-standing rights of the Complainant to the trademark and the Complainant's prominence and goodwill; moreover, the Respondent must have had such actual knowledge in view of the content of the offending website and the details of the products on offer and it could not have carried out its subterfuge without having actual knowledge of the Complainant, its trademark and its business; thus, the Panel finds that the Respondent had actual knowledge of the trademark when it registered the domain name, showing bad faith registration of the domain name;

(c) the Respondent appears to have used a privacy service in registering the domain name; this simply adds to the deceptive nature of the Respondent's conduct;

(d) the evidence shows that the Respondent's conduct was disruptive of the Complainant's business within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii); the essence of the Respondent's machinations was to reduce the business of the Complainant and to siphon off as much as it could to its own site, which is clearly disruptive of the Complainant's business;

(e) the evidence shows that the Respondent having registered the identical or confusingly similar disputed domain name, incorporating as it does the MACUHEALTH trademark without permission, and having used it for a website purporting to offer the Complainant's products, has generated confusion among internet users within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) to defraud internet users; and

(f) the evidence shows that all of the acts, facts, matters and circumstances revealed by the evidence have demonstrated that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith and that there is no plausible circumstance under which the Respondent could legitimately have registered and used the disputed domain name.

The Complainant has thus made out the third of the three elements that it must establish under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

The Complainant has thus presented a detailed and persuasive case consisting of evidence that has established all of the constituent elements that must be proved under the Policy.

The Complainant has also cited numerous prior UDRP decisions which support all of its contentions.

The Complainant has therefore established all the elements that it must show under the Policy and it is entitled to the relief it seeks, namely transfer 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 <macuhealth.site> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC

Panelist

Dated: October 10, 2025