DECISION

 

Del Monte Foods Corporation II Inc. v. tu he

Claim Number: FA2509002176804

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Del Monte Foods Corporation II Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Hara K. Jacobs of Ballard Spahr, LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is tu he ("Respondent"), Algeria.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <delmonteus.shop>, registered with Spaceship, Inc.

 

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 September 13, 2025; Forum received payment on September 13, 2025.

 

On September 15, 2025, Spaceship, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <delmonteus.shop> domain name is registered with Spaceship, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Spaceship, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Spaceship, 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 September 22, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 14, 2025 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@delmonteus.shop. Also on September 22, 2025, 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 October 15, 2025, 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 is one of the largest and best-known food and beverage companies in the United States. For over 130 years, Complainant and its predecessors and related entities have produced, distributed, marketed, and sold premium quality food products throughout the United States under the mark DEL MONTE.

 

Del Monte owns numerous active federal trademark registrations for the DEL MONTE marks. the DEL MONTE marks are famous as defined in 15 U.S.C. § 1125.

 

The at-issue domain name resolves to a website that purports to sell DEL MONTE food products at steep discounts alongside the food products of Complainant's competitors (such as Green Giant, Dole, and Whole Foods), prominently features Complainant's famous DEL MONTE mark in website headers and product titles, and copies Complainant's copyrighted product images that include the DEL MONTE QUALITY logo.

 

Similarity of the at-issue domain name to Complainant's trademarks. The domain name <delmonteus.shop> incorporates the entirety of Complainant's federally registered DEL MONTE® mark, merely adding the geographic term "US", and the generic top-level domain ".shop." When a domain name encompasses a Complainant's trademark, added terms and the gTLD do not distinguish the domain name.

 

Respondent's lack of rights and legitimate interests. Respondent is not, and has never been, licensed or authorized by Complainant to use the DEL MONTE Marks, and this demonstrates Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. At the time Respondent registered the domain name, it had no trademark or intellectual property rights in said domain name, and Respondent was not commonly known by the at-issue domain name. Respondent's use of <delmonteus.shop> for an unauthorized website incorporating Complainant's DEL MONTE marks and purporting to offer Complainant's products at a steep discount suggests that the products are counterfeit or not shipped to purchasing customers. Such use does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services under ICANN Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under ICANN Policy 4(c)(iii) and cannot confer rights or legitimate interests upon Respondent. Respondent's use of the domain name for Respondent's website that purports to sell products competing with Complainant's products also does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services under ICANN Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under ICANN Policy 4(c)(iii) and cannot confer rights or legitimate interests upon Respondent. The composition of the domain name, which incorporates Complainant's DEL MONTE mark, the geographic term "US", and the gTLD ".shop", carries a high risk of implied affiliation with Complainant, which cannot be considered a basis for rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Respondent is not making legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name under ICANN Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). There is nothing fair about Respondent's use. Respondent's blatant attempt to deceive consumers cannot be considered a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.

 

Respondent's bad faith registration and use of the at-issue domain name. Given the notoriety of Complainant and its trademarks, it is implausible that Respondent did not have knowledge of Complainant's rights in the DEL MONTE marks. Respondent knowledge when registering the at-issue domain name demonstrates Respondent's bad faith. Respondent is a serial cybersquatter with a pattern of bad faith registration and use who lost three prior domain name dispute proceedings under the Policy for .shop domain names registered with Spaceship, Inc. Respondent's past bad faith registration and use establishes bad faith use and registration under ICANN Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). Further, Respondent's registration of the domain name using a nonexistent street address in "New York" in the country of Algeria (DZ) further evidences Respondent's bad faith. Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to divert Complainant's customers and potential customers to an imitative website featuring Complainant's DEL MONTE marks and branded products. Such conduct disrupts Complainant's business and falls squarely within the type of use that the Policy prohibits. Respondent's use of <delmonteus.shop> to impersonate Complainant using Complainant's DEL MONTE marks and copies of Complainant's copyrighted product images on Respondent's website shows that Respondent knew of Complainant's trademark rights and intentionally sought to attract Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's famous DEL MONTE mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation and endorsement of Respondent's <delmonteus.shop> website. Respondent's registration and use of <delmonteus.shop> thus constitutes evidence of bad faith use and registration under ICANN Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has trademark rights in the DEL MONTE mark.

 

Complainant's rights in DEL MONTE predate Respondent's registration of <delmonteus.shop>.

 

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

 

Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to offer products for sale that are offered by Complainant's or compete with products offered by Complainant.

 

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 registrations for DEL MONTE 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 <delmonteus.shop> domain name consists of Complainant's DEL MONTE trademark less its domain name impermissible space, followed by the geographic term "us," 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 DEL MONTE trademark. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent's <delmonteus.shop> domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights under Policy ¶4 (a)(i). 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 June 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 <delmonteus.shop> ultimately leads to identifying the registrant behind the domain name's privacy shield as being "tu he" and the record contains no evidence that tends to prove that Respondent is commonly known by <delmonteus.shop>. 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 is very similar to Complainant's genuine website. Respondent's <delmonteus.shop> website prominently displays Complainant's DEL MONTE trademark as well as product images and descriptions apparently misappropriated from Complainant's genuine website. Respondent's <delmonteus.shop> website thereby attempts to pass itself off as being affiliated with Complainant to cause internet users to falsely believe that Respondent's domain name and its referenced website are endorsed by Complainant. There, Respondent purports to sell Complainant's products as well as competing products. Respondent's use of the <delmonteus.shop> domain name in this manner constitutes neither 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 forgoing, Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in respect of <delmonteus.shop>.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

As discussed below without being exhaustive, Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to the Policy.

 

Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address a website looking much like it may be Complainant's genuine website and there purports to offer products for sale that appear identical to Complainant's products as well as offering competing brands. The record contains no evidence supporting a finding that products offered by Respondent are genuine or that Respondent actually takes and fulfills any orders via the website. Nevertheless, Respondent's use of <delmonteus.shop> to pass itself off as Complainant, or an affiliate of Complainant, is disruptive to Complainant's business and is intended to deceptively attract internet users looking for Complainant to Respondent's <delmonteus.shop> website, presumably for Respondent's commercial benefit, by actually selling such products or through swindling consumers by receiving payments but failing to deliver any merchandize. In either case, Respondent thus capitalizes on the confusion it created between its <delmonteus.shop> domain name and Complainant's DEL MONTE trademark. Respondent's use of <delmonteus.shop> demonstrates Respondent's bad faith registration and use of such domain name under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See DatingDirect.com Ltd. v. Aston, FA 593977 (Forum Dec. 28, 2005) ("Respondent is appropriating Complainant's mark to divert Complainant's customers to Respondent's competing business. The Panel finds this diversion is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)."); 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)."); see also, Funding Circle Limited v. tim mcelwain / timmcelweain, FA 2003934 (Forum Aug. 4, 2022) ("Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to facilitate [a] phishing scheme designed to swindle funds from Complainant's customers. Such use of the confusingly similar domain name indicates Respondent's bad faith under the Policy.").

 

Next, Respondent has suffered multiple prior adverse UDRP decisions as respondent having lost three fairly recent decisions involving other ".shop" domain names -i.e., Bayer AG v. Tu He, D2025-2593 (WIPO Aug. 27, 2025); Paris Hilton v. tu he, tyhn dg, D2025-2891 (WIPO Sep. 1, 2025); and Perrigo Pharma International DAC v. tu he, D2025-2971 (WIPO Sep. 12, 2025) (Respondent found to have registered and used in bad faith). 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).

 

Respondent's overt use of false contact information when registering <delmonteus.shop> may be further evidence of Respondent's bad faith. See Farouk Systems, Inc. v. Jack King / SLB, FA 1618704 (Forum June 19, 2015) (finding bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) where the respondent had provided false contact information when registering the disputed domain name).

 

Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the DEL MONTE mark when it registered <delmonteus.shop> as a domain name. Respondent's prior knowledge is apparent given the mark's notoriety and given Respondent's use of the domain name to address a website mimicking Complainant's official website. Respondent's knowledge of Complainant's rights in DEL MONTE further demonstrates Respondent's bad faith under the Policy. 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).

 

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 <delmonteus.shop> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: October 17, 2025