DECISION

 

MacuHealth LP v. Fan Zi Nan

Claim Number: FA2607002232133

 

PARTIES

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

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <macuhealthh.online>, registered with DNSPod, Inc.

 

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.

 

Héctor Ariel Manoff as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 10, 2026; Forum received payment on July 10, 2026.

 

On July 14, 2026, DNSPod, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <macuhealthh.online> 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 July 20, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese and English Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 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@macuhealthh.online. Also on July 20, 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 August 11, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Héctor Ariel Manoff 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 THE PROCEEDING

According to the Registrar, the registration agreement 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 Amended Complaint in English and requests that these proceedings be conducted in English.

 

The Panel finds persuasive evidence to suggest the likely possibility that Respondent is to a material degree conversant and proficient in the English language.

 

The disputed domain name targets a trademark owned by a U.S. based company and is comprised of words in English HEALTH and ONLINE.

 

Respondent has not submitted evidence to prove that cannot understand English.

 

Complainant and their representative do not understand Chinese and since there has been no response to the complaint and Respondent has not objected that it could not read or understand the complaint, the Panel finds that in the circumstances it is appropriate for these proceedings to continue in the English language.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

1- Complainant, MacuHealth is a leading nutritional supplement manufacturer. 

2- Complainat owns trademark registrations MACUHEALTH and MACUHEALTH LMZ3 "TRUST THE SCIENCE" as from 2009 and 2016 to identify herbal supplements and pharmaceutical preparations for the treatment of eye diseases.

3- The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's registered MACUHEALTH® mark, since it fully incorporates the cited mark, merely adding a typo (double "h" at the end) and the top-level domain. 

4- The domain name was registered on June 8, 2026.

5- Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.

6- At present, the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive Shopify webpage.

7- Respondent both registered and is using the domain name <macuhealthh.online> in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant, MacuHealth LP, owns the trademarks MACUHEALTH and has used it in connection with nutritional supplement products since 2008. Complainant also operates the domain name <macuhealth.com>, which is used in connection with the advertising and sale of its products and services. Respondent has registered the disputed domain name <macuhealthh.online> on June 8, 2026 and it is being used in bad faith.

 

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 Panel finds that the disputed domain name, <macuhealthh.online>, is nearly identical and confusingly similar to Complainant's MACUHEALTH trademark and domain name <macuhealth.com>.

 

It includes the most distinctive part of the trademark (MACU) and Respondent only adds a typo (double "h") and the gTLD .online.

 

The Panel concludes that the differences in the disputed domain name are not sufficient to avoid leading the consumers into confusion about the products identified. 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 Lucasfilm Entertainment Company Ltd. LLC v George Ring, FA 1673825 (Forum June 7, 2016) (finding that, although a respondent's domain name <lukasfilm.com> incorporated the LUCASFILM mark of another and merely substituted a 'k' for the 'c,' it was nonetheless confusingly similar to that mark).

 

The Panel finds that it is clear that Respondent knew that MACUHEALTH belonged to Complainant. Respondent has just added a letter "h". The Panel finds that the domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark since the additional elements are not sufficiently distinctive. (See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exists 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); 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".).

 

The Panel finds that the domain name is almost identical and confusingly similar to Complainant marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then 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.").

 

The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <macuhealthh.online> domain name because Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the MACUHEALTH mark. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant's mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)").

 

In addition, WHOIS information does not suggest that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name (Exhibit 1). The revealed WHOIS record shows "Fan Zi Nan" as the Registrant Name. This Panel finds that Respondent has never been commonly known by the domain name.

 

Respondent has neither filed a response nor submitted evidence to prove that Respondent has any trademark rights in the <macuhealthh.online> domain name.

 

The evidence submitted by Complainant shows that Respondent's use of the <macuhealthh.online> domain is not a bona fide offering of goods. The disputed domain name resolves to an inactive Shopify webpage (Exhibit 5).

 

This Panel agrees with Complainant that Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with a legitimate noncommercial use or fair use under Policy 4(c)(iii). Therefore, the Panel agrees that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and does not have legitimate interest under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

This Panel finds that Complainant has registered (Exhibit 3) and used (Exhibit 4) the MACUHEALTH marks for many years (since 2008) along with the domain name <macuhealth.com>; all before the date on which the disputed domain name was registered (June 2026).

 

The registration of the domain name revels bad faith since it is almost identical to the Complainant's trademarks and domain name. The only difference is a purposely spelling mistake (the addition of a letter "h" at the end).

 

This is considering "typosquatting", which indicates bad faith. (See Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Forum June 23, 2003) (finding that the respondent engaged in typosquatting, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii))).

 

In the Panel's point of view the cited facts, which were neither responded nor refuted by Respondent, are sufficient evidence to support that the registration of the domain name was done in bad faith.

 

The Panel finds that it is clear that the domain name was registered with Complainant's mark in mind so registration was done in bad faith.

 

In addition, the disputed domain's homepage does not currently resolve to any active content (Exhibit 5); however, it can also be considered a bad faith sign. See Robert Half Inc. v. Rose Diaz / Robert half staffing, FA 2111371 (Forum Sept. 12, 2024) ("Respondent's passive holding of <rosediazroberthalfstaffing.org> demonstrates Respondent's bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See also CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina v. Zhuang Yan / WANGYONG, FA 1764026 (Forum Feb. 14, 2018) ("Respondent's domain names do not have resolving websites. Using a domain name to resolve to an inactive website (or no website at all) indicates bad faith registration and use.").

 

Prior Panels have considered it reasonable to infer bad faith registration and use when facing conflicts involving inactive domain names without evidence of preparations for use. (See Health Catalyst, Inc. v. Javid Henry FA 2158701 (Forum July 1, 2025) ("Respondent registered a domain name incorporating Complainant's registered mark. Respondent does not appear to have made any active use of the domain name, nor to have engaged in preparations for such use, and has failed to come forward with any explanation for the selection of the name or its intended use. Under the circumstances, the Panel considers it reasonable to infer that Respondent registered the domain name intending to use it in a manner calculated to create and exploit confusion with Complainant and its mark, likely either by using the domain name to attract or defraud Internet users seeking Complainant or by selling the domain name to Complainant or a competitor, and that Respondent is maintaining the domain name for that purpose. See, e.g., Blink Health Inc. v. Asif Khan / BlinkRXhealth, supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith")).

 

The Panel concludes that Respondent has the intention of creating an association with Complainant and its products and services.

 

This Panel concludes that Respondent has registered the domain name with the intent to attract and divert Internet users to the corresponding websites for its own benefit. See Carey Int'l, Inc. v. Kogan, FA 486191 (Forum July 29, 2005) ("[T]he Panel finds that Respondent is capitalizing on the confusing similarity of its domain names to benefit from the valuable goodwill that Complainant has established in its marks. Consequently, it is found that Respondent registered and used the domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).").

 

The Panel determines that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith under 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 <macuhealthh.online> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Héctor Ariel Manoff, Panelist

Dated: August 18, 2026