DECISION

 

MacuHealth LP v. CIERRA JUNE

Claim Number: FA2602002203880

 

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 <macuh-ealth.shop>, 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.

 

Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 5, 2026; Forum received payment on February 5, 2026.

 

On February 6, 2026, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <macuh-ealth.shop> 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 13, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 5, 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@macuh-ealth.shop. Also on February 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 March 6, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 contends in part as follows:

 

Complainant MacuHealth LP is the owner of USPTO trademark registrations for the MACUHEALTH mark. Complainant is a leading nutritional supplement manufacturer. Complainant's products are formulated with pure and stable ingredients that support eye health. Complainant has been using the MACUHEALTH mark since at least as early as 2008.

 

Confusing similarity.

Complainant's registrations and extensive use of the MACUHEALTH mark for MacuHealth products sufficiently establish its rights in the mark pursuant to ICANN's Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy ("Policy") ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

The at-issue domain name fully incorporates the MACUHEALTH mark, merely adding a hyphen after the first letter "h" in the MACUHEALTH trademark and adding the required generic top-level domain identifier ".shop." The incorporation of a trademark in its entirety into a domain name is sufficient to establish that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a registered trademark.

 

Respondent has introduced a typographical error into Complainant's MACUHEALTH mark by adding a hyphen "-" to break up the word "health" of the trademark. However, this change does nothing to distinguish the domain name from Complainant's MACUHEALTH mark or prevent the at-issue domain name from being confusingly similar to Complainant's MACUHEALTH mark.

 

Respondent's addition of the generic top-level domain ("gTLD") ".shop" is also insufficient to distinguish the at-issue domain name from Complainant's MACUHEALTH mark or to avoid a determination of confusing similarity.

 

Rights to or Legitimate Interests.

At present, the at-issue domain name resolves to a webpage containing the MACUHEALTH mark, claiming to sell Complainant's products.

 

The website at <macuh-ealth.shop> displays Complainant's products for sale under the MACUHEALTH mark in an attempt to mimic and impersonate Complainant. Respondent registered the domain name and created the website to pass itself off as Complainant, which does not support use of the domain name for legitimate rights or bona fide business purposes.

 

The WHOIS record initially available for <macuh-ealth.shop> shows "User #6c7c69b0 Privacy" for the Registrant Name and "See PrivacyGuardian.org" for the Registrant Organization. However, the revealed WHOIS record shows "CIERRA JUNE" as the Registrant's Name. Therefore, there is nothing in the WHOIS record for <macuh-ealth.shop> or on the webpage to which the at-issue domain name resolves to indicate that Respondent is legitimately commonly known as, operating a business as, or advertising as "MacuH-ealth." In the absence of evidence submitted by the respondent, the WHOIS record is the sole piece of relevant evidence when determining what a respondent is commonly known as.

 

Using another entity's trademark to divert traffic to the webpage at a domain name that is confusingly similar to that trademark is not a legitimate use and does not create rights or legitimate interest in the domain name for the registrant. Respondent's use of the domain name <macuh-ealth.shop> that attempts to mimic Complainant – likely generating revenue for Respondent's benefit – qualifies as neither a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).

 

Respondent's use of the at-issue domain name demonstrates that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's MACUHEALTH mark upon registration of the domain name, which "negates any claim to legitimate usage" under the Policy.

 

Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the MACUHEALTH mark, or any variation thereof, in connection with any goods or services. Nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to apply for any domain name which is confusingly similar to Complainant's MACUHEALTH mark, or which causes confusion as to the appearance of association with Complainant. Even if Respondent were an authorized distributor or representative of Complainant, which it is not, Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Respondent is not an authorized distributor or representative of MACUHEALTH branded products, and this relationship is not clear.

 

Respondent's webpage https://macuh-ealth.shop/ is confusingly similar to both Complainant's MACUHEALTH mark and Complainant's official webpage at https://www.macuhealth.com/. When customers are mistakenly routed to Respondent's webpage, they are likely to conclude that they have reached an official or authorized MACUHEALTH webpage, or Complainant itself.

 

Respondent is clearly falsely representing itself as Complainant, or an authorized distributor or representative thereof. Respondent has variously and falsely held and holds itself out to be an authorized distributor or representative. Respondent compounds this confusion by displaying prominently the design forms of the MACUHEALTH mark and displaying prominently copyright protected images and language owned by Complainant.

 

Registered and used in Bad Faith.

Respondent's registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant's MACUHEALTH mark in order to divert Internet traffic to Respondent's webpage evidences a clear intent to trade upon the goodwill associated with Complainant's MACUHEALTH mark.

 

The at-issue domain name resolves to a deceitful website containing Complainant's MACUHEALTH mark. Respondent deceptively uses the domain name <macuh-ealth.shop> to redirect users to a fraudulent website by registering and using Complainant's trademark in the domain name, which shows bad faith.

 

The webpage to which the domain name <macuh-ealth.shop> resolves purports to offer Complainant's own MACUHEALTH branded products. Many internet visitors to Respondent's webpage at <macuh-ealth.shop> will either not realize that they have been unwittingly directed to a website that has no affiliation to Complainant or not appreciate that they are not at Complainant's "official" website, causing damage to Complainant through loss of business. Respondent's registration and use of the domain name is disruptive to Complainant constituting bad faith because there is a likelihood that internet users will falsely believe Respondent's confusingly similar at-issue domain name is affiliated with Complainant.

 

Respondent's registration and use of <macuh-ealth.shop> is for the sole bad faith purpose of impersonating Complainant and using the resulting confusion to defraud third parties.

 

Further, Respondent's registration and use of the domain name <macuh-ealth.shop> shows that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant – not only by using the MACUHEALTH mark within the domain name but also because Respondent's webpage at the domain name <macuh-ealth.shop> uses the MACUHEALTH mark in a manner that mimics Complainant's webpage and attempts to impersonate Complainant. Actual knowledge of the trademark when registering and using a domain name has been found to be bad faith.

 

The domain name <macuh-ealth.shop> is typosquatting resulting from typographically altering the trademark "MACUHEALTH" to include a hyphen after the first letter "h" of the word "health" of the trademark to create the incorrect spelling "MACUH-EALTH". Such conduct is evidence of Respondent's bad faith in registering and using the at-issue domain name. Respondent's use of typosquatting conduct in registration and use of the domain name supports that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's MACUHEALTH mark upon its registration.

 

In addition, Respondent registered the at-issue domain name using a privacy service. In the commercial context, the registration of a domain name using a privacy service raises a rebuttable presumption of bad faith.

 

Respondent CIERRA JUNE has been named as a respondent in at least six (6) UDRP decisions – all adverse to Respondent. Notably, three (3) adverse decisions are in favor of Complainant against a similar domain name registration and use by Respondent. Further, the remaining three (3) adverse decisions are in favor of a complainant in a similar business as Complainant – offering nutritional supplement products. In addition, Respondent was named in another pending proceeding filed by Complainant against <macuhealths.site>. It is thus evident that Respondent is targeting Complainant and the MACUHEALTH mark for cybersquatting and deceptive internet activities. Based on these adverse decisions, Respondent is certainly a repeat offender with a pattern of domain name abuse suggesting bad faith and targeting Complainant and its nutritional supplement products – as well as those of other third parties.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has trademark rights in the MACUHEALTH mark.

 

Complainant's rights in MACUHEALTH predate Respondent's registration of <macu-health.shop>.

 

Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant nor authorized to use Complainant's trademarks in any capacity.

 

Respondent uses the at-issue domain name and its associated website to pass itself off as Complainant to fraudulently trade off Complainant's mark.

 

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 at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Complainant's ownership of a USPTO registration for MACUHEALTH is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant's rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Target Brands, Inc. v. jennifer beyer, FA 1738027 (Forum July 31, 2017) ("Complainant has rights in its TARGET service mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) by virtue of its registration of the mark with a national trademark authority, the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO").")

 

Respondent's <macuh-ealth.shop> domain name consists of a hyphenated version of Complainant's MACUHEALTH trademark where an insignificant hyphen is inserted into Complainant's mark. The domain name concludes with the confusing similarity analysis irrelevant ".shop" top-level. The differences between Complainant's trademark and the at-issue domain name fail to distinguish Respondent's domain name from Complainant's MACUHEALTH trademark. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent's <macuh-ealth.shop> domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights under Policy ¶ 4 (a)(i). See Acme Lift Company, L.L.C. v. VistaPrint Technologies Ltd, FA 1607039 (Forum Apr. 11, 2015) (stating: "Where a respondent has created a domain name in an effort to visually deceive Internet users via a simple misspelling (and when such misspellings are visually similar to the mark), a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) is appropriate."); see also, Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognizable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element."); see also, Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Domain Administrator / Registry Services, LLC, FA 2038314 (Forum July 26, 2023)("The addition of a gTLD fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).")

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

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. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant's prima facie showing acts conclusively.

 

Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity and as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name. See Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA 1620789 (Forum Jun. 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the at-issue domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark into any domain name).

 

The WHOIS information for <macuh-ealth.shop> leads to identifying the registrant behind the domain name's privacy service as "CIERRA JUNE" and the record contains no evidence that tends to prove that Respondent is commonly known by <macuh-ealth.shop> or any variation thereof. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).

 

The website at <macuh-ealth.shop> displays Complainant's products for sale under the MACUHEALTH mark. Respondent uses its <macuh-ealth.shop> domain name to pose as Complainant by mimicking aspects of Complainant's genuine website and thereby Respondent attempts to trick third-parties seeking Complainant into believing they are dealing with Complainant when in fact Respondent is intent on trading on Complainant's mark. Respondent's use of <macuh-ealth.shop> in this manner is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. NGYEN NGOC PHUONG THAO, FA 1741737 (Forum Aug. 21, 2017) ("Respondent uses the [disputed] domain name to divert Internet users to Respondent's website… confusing them into believing that some sort of affiliation exists between it and Complainant… [which] is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."); see also, MacuHealth LP v. wang yu chen, FA 2183605 (Forum November 28, 2025) ("[T]he Panel finds that Respondent was using the disputed domain name to mimic and compete with Complainant's website for commercial gain with the intent to mislead by potentially defrauding Complainant and/or Internet users. Such use cannot conceivably constitute a bona fide offering of a product or service within the meaning of paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy.")

 

Given the foregoing, Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in respect of <macuh-ealth.shop>.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

As discussed below without being exhaustive, Respondent acted in bad faith.

 

Respondent's confusingly similar <macuh-ealth.shop> domain name addresses a website where Respondent purports to offer merchandise associate with Complainant's MACUHEALTH trademark. The website appears as if it is authorized by Complainant when it is not. Respondent's use of <macuh-ealth.shop> in support of an unauthorized website pretending to be associated with Complainant falsely implies Respondent's affiliation with Complainant and is thus disruptive to Complainant's business and likely designed to deceptively attract internet users so that Respondent may capitalize on the confusion it created between its <macuh-ealth.shop> domain name and referenced website, and Complainant's MACUHEALTH trademark. Respondent's use of the <macuh-ealth.shop> domain name and website demonstrates Respondent's bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where "Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing internet users to a website that mimics Complainant's own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant.")

 

Next, Respondent has suffered many prior adverse UDRP decisions. Respondent was named as a respondent in multiple UDRP decisions some of which held for Complainant against a similar domain name registration and its use by Respondent. Other adverse UDRP decisions hold in favor of a complainant in a similar business as Complainant. Respondent's recurrent cybersquatting reveals a pattern of domain name abuse and is evidence of Respondent's bad faith in the instant case under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Tommy John, Inc. v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, FA 1878688 (Forum Feb. 6, 2020) (finding bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) where the respondent had been subject to numerous UDRP proceedings where panels ordered the transfer of disputed domain names containing the trademarks of the complainants).

 

Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the MACUHEALTH mark when Respondent registered <macuh-ealth.shop> as a domain name. Respondent's actual knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant's MACUHEALTH trademark; from Respondent's use of the domain name to pass off as Complainant; and from Respondent's prior adverse UDRP proceedings involving Complainant. Respondent's registration and use of a confusingly similar domain name with knowledge of Complainant's rights in MACUHEALTH further demonstrates Respondent's bad faith. See Lemon Inc. v. Sumer Singh, FA 2110519 (Forum September 5, 2024 ("registration of a disputed domain name with actual knowledge of another's trademark rights is sufficient to establish bad faith, and can be shown by the notoriety of the mark and the use the Respondent makes of the disputed domain name"); see also, Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name); see also, Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering 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 <macuh-ealth.shop> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: March 7, 2026