DECISION

 

MacuHealth LP v. yan qing hua

Claim Number: FA2601002200168

 

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 <macu-visionhealth.store>, registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn).

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 16, 2026; Forum received payment on January 16, 2026.

 

On January 19, 2026, Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <macu-visionhealth.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 21, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese and English Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 10, 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-visionhealth.store. Also on January 21, 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 11, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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

The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's English-language mark and adds the English word "vision". The Panel finds that Respondent is likely conversant in English and, in the absence of any objection, the Panel will conduct this proceeding in English. See Mediacom Communications Corporation v. meng xuan cao, FA 2025893 (Forum January 27, 2023 ("Notably the at-issue domain name contains English characters and English words.   Therefore, after considering the circumstances in the present case, including Respondent's failure to respond or object to going forward in English, the Panel finds that the proceeding should be in English.")

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

1.       Respondent's <macu-visionhealth.store> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's MACUHEALTH mark.

 

2.       Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <macu-visionhealth.store> domain name.

 

3.       Respondent registered and uses the <macu-visionhealth.store> domain name in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent did not file a Response.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant offers herbal supplements and pharmaceutical preparations, and holds a registration for the MACUHEALTH mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (Reg. No. 3,655,528, registered July 15, 2009).

 

Respondent registered the <macu-visionhealth.store> domain name on January 6, 2026, and it does not resolve to an active website.

 

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 Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the MACUHEALTH mark through registration with the USPTO. See Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) (stating, "Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy.").

 

Respondent's <macu-visionhealth.store> domain name uses Complainant's MACUHEALTH mark, with "-vision" inserted, and adds a top-level domain. This change does not distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exist where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant's entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain, the differences between the domain name and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy.) The Panel therefore finds that Respondent's <macu-visionhealth.store> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's MACUHEALTH mark.

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have 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)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) ("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").

 

Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <macu-visionhealth.store> domain name, as Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, and Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use its MACUHEALTH mark. The WHOIS information identifies Respondent as "yan qing hua". Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Radio Flyer Inc. v. er nong wu, FA 2011001919893 (Forum Dec. 16, 2020) ("Here, the WHOIS information lists "er nong wu" as the registrant and no information suggests Complainant has authorized Respondent to use the RADIO FLYER mark in any way. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).")

 

Complainant argues that Respondent is not using the <macu-visionhealth.store> domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use as Respondent makes no active use of the domain name. Complainant demonstrates that the disputed domain name resolves to the message "Hmm…can't reach this page", which does not establish a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The Panel therefore finds that Respondent has no rights under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Teachers Ins. and Annuity Ass'n of Am. V. Wreaks Commc'ns Group (WIPO June 15, 2006) ("passive holding does not constitute 'legitimate non-commercial or fair use'").  

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant argues that Respondent's failure to make an active use of the <macu-visionhealth.store> domain name constitutes bad faith. The Panel agrees and finds bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Granite Gear, LLC v. Will Cameron, FA 2073431 (Forum January 11, 2024) ("The Panel concludes that Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Since the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive webpage, such use indicates bad faith registration and use. It has long been held in UDRP decisions that the passive or inactive holding of a domain name that incorporates a registered trademark without a legitimate Internet purpose may indicate that the domain name is being used in bad faith under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. ")

 

Complainant also provides evidence showing that Respondent has been the subject of numerous prior adverse UDRP rulings, demonstrating a pattern of bad faith. The Panel thus finds further bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Provide Com., Inc. v. Jardimar Holdings Corp / Charingola, FA 1502077 (Forum June 27, 2013) ("[T]he existence of previous UDRP decisions where Respondent was found to have registered a domain name in bad faith reveals Respondent's pattern of cybersquatting behavior. The Panel construes Respondent's pattern of such behavior as evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith as well.")

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

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-visionhealth.store> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist

Dated: February 12, 2026