DECISION

 

MacuHealth LP v. zhang teng

Claim Number: FA2607002232189

 

PARTIES

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

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <macuhealthy.shop>, registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn).

 

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 July 13, 2026; Forum received payment on July 13, 2026.

 

On July 14, 2026, Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <macuhealthy.shop> 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 July 21, 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@macuhealthy.shop. Also on July 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 August 11, 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 targets a USPTO registered trademark owned by a company marketing its products in the United States. The at-issue domain name incorporates Complainant's English language trademark. Furthermore, the webpage addressed by the at-issue domain name returns an error message entirely in 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 concludes that the instant proceeding should be in English.

 

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

 

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 ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

The at-issue domain name fully incorporates the MACUHEALTH mark, merely adding the letter "y" at the end of the "health" portion of the mark, 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 the letter "y" at the end of the mark. However, this change does nothing to distinguish the at-issue domain name from Complainant's MACUHEALTH mark or prevent the domain name from being confusingly similar to Complainant's MACUHEALTH mark and Respondent's addition of the generic top-level domain ("gTLD") ".shop" is irrelevant to the purpose of determining confusing similarity.

 

Rights to or Legitimate Interests.

Respondent's attempt to divert web traffic to the <macuhealthy.shop> webpage by using a typosquatted domain name is evidence that Respondent lacks any legitimate rights in the domain name.

 

The at-issue domain name resolves to an inactive Shopify webpage. Respondent thus holds the domain name passively and is not using it for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Workday, Inc. v. Zhichao Yang FA 2184091 (Forum Nov. 19, 2025) ("The Panel notes that a failure to make active use of a domain name does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).").

 

The WHOIS record for <macuhealthy.shop> shows nothing for the Registrant Name or Registrant Address. However, the revealed WHOIS record shows "zhang teng" as the Registrant's Name. Therefore, there is nothing in the WHOIS record for <macuhealthy.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 "Macuhealthy." 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. Further, Respondent is not and did not become commonly known as "MacuHealthy" by registering the Infringing Domain with the privacy service.

 

What's more, it is believed that Respondent is one of the same respondents identified in successful UDRP complaints filed by Complainant with Forum against numerous domain names that are confusingly similar to Complainant's mark.

 

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 authorized Respondent to use the MACUHEALTH mark. Respondent is nevertheless attempting to trade on the goodwill associated with the MACUHEALTH mark by using a confusingly similar domain name.

 

Registered and used in Bad Faith. 

Respondent both registered and is using the domain name <macuhealthy.shop> in bad faith. Respondent's registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant's MACUHEALTH mark to divert Internet traffic to Respondent's webpage evidences a clear intent to trade upon the goodwill associated with Complainant's MACUHEALTH mark.

 

The domain name <macuhealthy.shop> is typosquatting resulting from typographically altering the trademark "MACUHEALTH" to the incorrect spelling "MACUHEALTHY". Such conduct is evidence of Respondent's bad faith in registering and using the Infringing Domain name.

 

The at-issue domain name does not resolve to an active webpage. Instead, Respondent is simply passively holding the domain name <macuhealthy.shop>, which previous panels have found to be in bad faith.

 

Respondent is attempting to create a false association with Complainant by registering and using a domain name that includes the registered trademark MACUHEALTH, and, at worst, is attempting to pass itself off as Complainant or using the at-issue domain name to prevent Complainant from using its own marks. This intent to disrupt Complainant's business is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).

 

Respondent's registration and use of <macuhealthy.shop> shows that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant – not only by using the MACUHEALTH mark in the domain name but also because Complainant believes that the inactive Shopify webpage previously resolved to a storefront attempting to pass itself off as Complainant, or that Respondent's intent is to mimic Complainant's webpage. Actual knowledge of the trademark when registering and using a domain name has been found to be bad faith.

 

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

 

The business model based upon use of an infringing domain name to attract users to Respondent's domain name is clear evidence that Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). With regards to the at-issue domain name, Respondent is engaged in deceptive activities, using the MACUHEALTH mark as the dominant portion of the at-issue domain name to attract users to a now inactive Shopify storefront which is misleading and confusing to Internet users who find their way to the domain name. Respondent is likely relying on users to believe the domain name <macuhealthy.shop> is associated with Complainant for unknown deceitful purposes, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use.

 

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 <macuhealthy.shop>.

 

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

 

Respondent holds the <macuhealthy.shop> domain name passively.

 

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 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 <macuhealthy.shop> domain name consists of Complainant's MACUHEALTH trademark with an added letter "y," with all followed by 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 trademark. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent's <macuhealthy.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).

 

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 interests in respect of the <macuhealthy.shop> domain name. 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)").

 

The WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name leads to finding that the domain name's registrant is "zhang teng" and the record before the Panel contains no competent evidence tending to prove that Respondent is commonly known by <macuhealthy.shop>. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark).

 

Respondent's at-issue domain name is not linked to an active website. Instead <macuhealthy.shop> returns an inactive Shopify page lacking any substantive content and stating inter alia  that "Something when wrong" and "This store is not available." Thus, Respondent holds the domain name passively. Respondent's passive holding of the at-issue domain name 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 CrossFirst Bankshares, Inc. v Yu-Hsien Huang, FA 1785415 (Forum June 6, 2018) ("Complainant demonstrates that Respondent fails to actively use the disputed domain name as it resolves to an inactive website. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to actively use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).")

 

Given the forgoing, Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in respect of <macuhealthy.shop>.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

As discussed below without limitation, Respondent acted in bad faith.

 

As mentioned above concerning rights and legitimate interests, Respondent's <macuhealthy.shop> domain name is inactive as it returns an inactive webpage. Respondent's passive holding of the confusingly similar <macuhealthy.shop> domain name shows Respondent's bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See 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.")

 

Next, Respondent engages in typosquatting. Typosquatting is a practice whereby a domain name registrant deliberately introduces typographical errors or misspellings into a trademark and then uses the malformed string in a domain name hoping that internet users will accidently type such string when searching for products or services associated with the target trademark and/or as more likely in the instant dispute, that internet users will at first glance misread the misspelled trademark laden domain name and confuse it with the domain name's target trademark, here MACUHEALTH. Respondent's intentional misspelling/mistyping of MACUHEALTH by appending a letter "y" to the mark within Respondent's <macuhealthy.shop> domain name is indicative of Respondent's desire to use the domain name to exploit Complainant's trademark. Respondent's typosquatting, in itself, is evidence of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) 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)).

 

Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the MACUHEALTH trademark when it registered <macuhealthy.shop> as a domain name. Respondent's actual knowledge of Complainant's trademark is evident from the notoriety of Complainant's MACUHEALTH mark and from Respondent's overt misspelling of Complainant's distinctive trademark in forming the at-issue domain name. Respondent's registration and use of <macuhealthy.shop> with knowledge of Complainant's rights in MACUHEALTH further shows Respondent's bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). 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 <macuhealthy.shop> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: August 12, 2026