DECISION

 

Careismatic Brands, LLC v. dan tangchun / dantangchun

Claim Number: FA2606002229145

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Careismatic Brands, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Neha Bhalani of Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC, New York, USA. Respondent is dan tangchun / dantangchun ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <healinghandshop.com>, registered with Xin Net Technology Corporation.

 

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 June 24, 2026; Forum received payment on June 24, 2026.

 

On June 25, 2026, Xin Net Technology Corporation confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <healinghandshop.com> domain name is registered with Xin Net Technology Corporation and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Xin Net Technology Corporation has verified that Respondent is bound by the Xin Net Technology Corporation 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 June 30, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese and English Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 20, 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@healinghandshop.com. Also on June 30, 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 July 21, 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.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDING

Notwithstanding that the relevant Registration Agreement may have been written in Chinese, pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a) the Panel finds persuasive evidence to suggest the likely possibility that Respondent is to a material degree conversant and proficient in the English language.

 

Respondent's at-issue domain name utilizes the Latin alphabet and contains the English words Healing Hands and Shop. The domain name targets a U.S. company that operates in English. Further, Respondent's website at the at-issue domain name is written entirely in English. Thus, it appears that Respondent is capable of understanding English. Consequently, since Respondent most likely has a working knowledge of English, Complainant would be unduly burdened if this proceeding were to continue in Chinese as there would be no cognizable benefit to Respondent, the dispute resolution provider, or the Panel, and yet Complainant would have to bear the time and expense of facilitating the translation of relevant documents into Chinese.

 

Therefore, after considering the circumstances of the present case including the proper service of a Chinese and English Written Notice of the Complaint upon Respondent and Respondent's failure to respond thereto, the Panel finds that the instant proceeding should be in English.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant contends in part as follows:

 

Complainant, Careismatic Brands, LLC, is the owner, well-known designer, manufacturer, and distributor of the popular medical apparel brand HEALING HANDS and the owner of the HEALING HANDS trademarks. The HEALING HANDS brand was launched in 2009 and is an industry leader in the medical apparel market. Complainant has achieved substantial sales success, and its products are sold through its own online store available at healinghandsscrubs.com as well as popular online retailers such as Amazon.com and Walmart.com and through authorized brick and mortar retailers. Complainant's HEALING HANDS brand has received significant publicity in the marketplace. Complainant's products have received thousands of five-star reviews online.

 

The domain name directs to a website where Respondent is engaged in the sale of substantial amounts of infringing merchandise bearing or utilizing Complainant's HEALING HANDS mark as well as images, designs, and other forms of intellectual property that directly infringe upon Complainant's intellectual property. Specifically, the website features the HEALING HANDS mark prominently on the top of each page and throughout the website. Respondent's website is designed to mislead consumers into believing that Respondent is Complainant. Further, Respondent may be using the domain name in furtherance of phishing scheme to obtain credit card information from consumers or for some other fraudulent or illicit purpose.

 

Respondent has appropriated Complainant's HEALING HANDS mark in bad faith in order to attract internet users to its website in order to sell merchandise bearing Complainant's mark and intellectual property and to engage in a credit card phishing scheme or for some other fraudulent or illicit purpose. Respondent has not used and is not using the at-issue domain name in connection with a legitimate business utilizing the name "Healing Hands", "Healing Hands Shop", "Healing Hand Shop" or any close variation thereof. Accordingly, there could be no demonstrable or equitable harm to Respondent were the domain name to be transferred to Complainant.

 

The domain name healinghandshop.com is virtually Identical and confusingly similar to Complainant's HEALING HANDS mark. Misspellings such as the omission of a letter does not distinguish the domain name from the Complainant's trademark pursuant to the UDRP Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The domain name incorporates Complainant's HEALING HANDS mark in its entirety with the generic word "shop" and the generic gTLD .com. Complainant has strong rights in and to its HEALING HANDS mark, as the mark is the subject of two United States Trademark Registration one of which is incontestable.

 

Respondent has No Rights or Legitimate Interests with Respect to the Domain Name. Respondent registered the domain name on January 29, 2026, over seventeen years after Complainant's HEALING HANDS mark was first used, seven years after Complainant's United States Trademark Registration for the HEALING HANDS mark in Class 10 was issued, and two years after Complainant's United States Trademark Registration for the HEALING HANDS mark in Class 25 was issued. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name that is the subject of this Complaint. The at-issue domain name directs to a website where Respondent falsely claims to be the Complainant. Respondent cannot be said to be commonly known by the at-issue domain name since Respondent is impersonating Complainant. In addition, Respondent has copied the look and feel of Complainant's website and has misappropriated images taken from Complainant's website (including images of Complainant's goods and models wearing Complainant's goods). Respondent is engaged in the unauthorized sale of merchandise bearing or utilizing Complainant's HEALING HANDS mark. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant's HEALING HANDS mark in connection with Respondent's website or the sale of goods that directly infringe upon Complainant's well-established rights. Respondent's website is an attempt by Respondent to pass itself off as Complainant in order to deceive consumers into purchasing unauthorized and counterfeit products. Respondent's website also features numerous images of Complainant's goods and photographs taken directly from Complainant's website, thereby misleading consumers to believe that Respondent's website is authorized by or otherwise connected to Complainant. Use of a disputed domain name by a respondent to pass itself off as complainant in order to advertise and sell unauthorized products of complainant is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). Furthermore, Respondent has not made, nor is presently making, any legitimate noncommercial use of the Domain Name for any purpose.

 

Respondent has Registered and is Using the Domain Name in Bad Faith. Respondent registered and is using the domain name to profit from and exploit Complainant's HEALING HANDS mark. As set forth above, Respondent is attempting to disrupt Complainant's business by offering unauthorized, competing products for commercial gain. Respondent's use of the corresponding website to display products that are identical to Complainant's goods disrupts Complainant's business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Further, Respondent is using the at-issue domain name in an attempt to pass itself off as Complainant. The domain name directs users to a website that purports to be the official website and online store for Complainant with the goal of misleading consumers into believing that Respondent is the Complainant. Since the only purpose of Respondent's use of the domain name is to trade upon Complainant's trademark rights and corresponding goodwill, Respondent's registration and use of the domain name is in bad faith. In addition, Respondent's use and registration of the at-issue domain name is likely to misleadingly divert web users trying to locate Complainant on the internet, thus tarnishing and disparaging the reputation and goodwill associated with the HEALING HANDS mark. Moreover, there is no question that the domain name is an intentionally misspelled version of Complainant's HEALING HANDS trademark (by omitting the letter "s" at the end of "HANDS"). It is well settled that typosquatting is an indication of bad faith per se. Respondent registered the at-issue domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant and Complainant's trademark rights in the HEALING HANDS mark. Respondent's prior knowledge of Complainant's rights is evident given the notoriety of Complainant's trademark and the Respondent's use of the confusingly similar domain name with a website designed to look like it is actually Complainant's website. Respondent also utilizes the ® symbol in connection with the HEALING HANDS mark on the website accessible at the domain name evidencing that Respondent is aware of Complainant's rights in and to the HEALING HANDS mark. Respondent's registration of the at-issue domain name with knowledge of Complainant's trademark rights further demonstrates Respondent's bad faith in the registration and use of the Domain Name.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has trademark rights in the HEALING HANDS mark.

 

Complainant's rights in HEALING HANDS predate Respondent's registration of <healinghandshop.com>.

 

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

 

Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address a website looking like it is authorized by Complainant where Respondent purports to offer Complainant's HEALING HANDS branded products for sale,

 

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 3.1 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

The at-issue domain names is confusingly similar or identical to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Complainant shows that it has USPTO registrations for its HEALING HANDS trademark. Any of such registrations is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant's rights in the HEALING HANDS mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See BGK Trademark Holdings, LLC & Beyoncé Giselle Knowles-Carter v. Chanphut / Beyonce Shop, FA 1626334 (Forum Aug. 3, 2015) (asserting that Complainant's registration with the USPTO (or any other governmental authority) adequately proves its rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).

 

Respondent's <healinghandshop.com> domain name consists of Complainant's HEALING HANDS trademark less its domain name impermissible space that is sharing its letter "s" with the added suggestive term "shop," with all followed by the top-level domain name ".com." The differences between the at-issue domain name and Complainant's HEALING HANDS trademark are insufficient to distinguish the at-issue domain name from HEALING HANDS for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent's <healinghandshop.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's HEALING HANDS trademark. See 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.")

 

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 <healinghandshop.com> leads to identifying <healinghandshop.com>'s registrant as "dan tangchun / dantangchun" and the record contains no evidence that tends to prove that Respondent is commonly known by <healinghandshop.com> 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).

 

Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address a website that appears like it may be a genuine or authorized website of Complainant. The <healinghandshop.com> website displays Complainant's HEALING HANDS trademark and images of a wide variety of Complainant's products, purportedly for sale. Respondent's use of <healinghandshop.com> to pose as Complainant and misdirect internet users to Respondent's website is not indicative of a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Insomniac Holdings, LLC v. Mark Daniels, FA 1735969 (Forum July 15, 2017) (refusing to find rights and legitimate interests in a domain name on the part of a respondent when the disputed domain name "resolves to a website that Respondent has designed to mimic Complainant's own in an attempt to pass itself off as Complainant").

 

Given the foregoing, Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in respect of <healinghandshop.com>.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

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

 

As mentioned above, Respondent uses <healinghandshop.com> to address a website looking like it might be an authorized website of Complainant. There, Complainant displays images for a large number of HEALING HANDS related products and purports to offer such products for sale. Respondent's use of <healinghandshop.com> to pass off as Complainant or an agent of Complainant and feign being an authorized online shop for Complainant's merchandise is disruptive to Complainant's business and intended to attract internet users looking for Complainant to Respondent's website so that Respondent might wrongfully capitalize on the confusion it created between its <healinghandshop.com> domain name and Complainant's HEALING HANDS trademark. Respondent's use of <healinghandshop.com> 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."); see also, Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Domain ID Shield Service / Domain ID Shield Service CO., Limited, FA 1841700 (Forum June 21, 2019) (finding that respondent was using "chevronplacement.com" in bad faith in order to "disrupt the business of Complainant by causing internet users to think an affiliation exists between Respondent's domain names and Complainant");see also, Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA 1612750 (Forum May 13, 2015) ("The Panel agrees that Respondent's use of the website to display products similar to Complainant's, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).")

 

Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the HEALING HANDS mark when it registered <healinghandshop.com> as a domain name. Respondent's actual knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant's HEALING HANDS trademark and from Respondent's use of the domain name to address a website that by mimicking Complainant's genuine website appears as if it is an authorized website of Complainant. Respondent's registration and use of a confusingly similar domain name with knowledge of Complainant's rights in HEALING HANDS further demonstrates Respondent's bad faith. See Lemon Inc. v. Sumer Singh, FA 2110519 (Forum Sept. 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 <healinghandshop.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: July 21, 2026