Despite having only a common law trademark, Google won a second UDRP involving its Nano Banana product, an AI image-editing model launched on August 12, 2025. It lost one UDRP filing as well.
In this case, the domain AINanoBanana.ai was registered just one week later and incorporated the mark in full, adding only “ai” to the left and right of the mark.
The resolving site referenced Google’s Gemini and Nano Banana products while promoting competing software. With no authorization and no Response from the Respondent, the Panel found no rights or legitimate interests in the domain and concluded the site was designed to pass itself off as Google.
Bad faith was clear from the timing of the registration, the direct references to Google’s technology, and the site’s commercial promotion of competing services. The Forum Panel also cited opportunistic bad faith, noting the registration followed widespread media attention on Google’s launch.
Final decision: Transfer granted; ainanobanana.ai was ordered transferred to the Complainant.
Copyright © 2025 DomainGang.com · All Rights Reserved.Google LLC v. baird hu
Claim Number: FA2510002185483
PARTIES
Complainant is Google LLC (“Complainant”), represented by James R. Davis of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is baird hu (“Respondent”), Colorado, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is ainanobanana.ai, registered with Spaceship, 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.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on October 28, 2025; Forum received payment on October 28, 2025.
On October 28, 2025, Spaceship, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the ainanobanana.ai 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 October 30, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 19, 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@ainanobanana.ai. Also on October 30, 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 November 20, 2025, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill 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 states that the GOOGLE name and company were created in 1998 by Stanford Ph.D. candidates Larry Page and Sergey Brin. Since that time, Complainant’s search engine has become one of the most highly recognized Internet search services in the world. GOOGLE is routinely included in global lists of top brands. In 2020, Forbes ranked GOOGLE the second most-valuable brand globally and in 2025, Brand Finance ranked GOOGLE as the third most-valuable brand in its Global 500 ranking. Complainant’s website has been recognized as one of the most popular destinations on the Internet for many years. Complainant has constantly been honored for its technology and services and has received numerous industry awards. Complainant owns common law rights in the highly distinctive trademark NANO BANANA, which it uses in connection with an AI-powered image editing model that allows users to edit images using text prompts. On August 19, 2025, just one week after the August 12, 2025, release of the model on LM Arena and initial public commentary regarding Complainant’s new NANO BANANA offerings, Respondent registered the disputed domain name.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is virtually identical and confusingly similar to its NANO BANANA mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety and merely adds the generic/descriptive term “AI” (which stands for “artificial intelligence”) and the “.ai” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
According to Complainant, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and Complainant has not authorized or licensed to Respondent any rights in its mark. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent is using the disputed domain name in connection with a website that is clearly intended to pass itself off as Complainant or to create the impression that the website is operated by or is affiliated with, sponsored or endorsed by, or otherwise authorized by Complainant in relation to its NANO BANANA offerings: the website references Complainant and its Gemini and Nano Banana software and offers to sell competing software. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent registered the disputed domain name in order to disrupt Complainant’s business by offering competing services at the resolving website. Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in its mark. Respondent engaged in opportunistic registration. Respondent did not reply to a cease-and-desist letter from Complainant. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
FINDINGS
Complainant has rights in the mark NANO BANANA and uses it to provide AI-powered video generation offerings.
Complainant’s rights in its mark date back to at least August 12, 2025.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.
The disputed domain name was registered on August 19, 2025.
The resolving website offers services that compete with those of Complainant. The resolving website attempts to pass off as Complainant, referencing Complainant and its products and services.
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
Complainant asserts common law rights in its NANO BANANA mark. Common law rights are sufficient to establish rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Artistic Pursuit LLC v. calcuttawebdevelopers.com, FA 894477 (Forum Mar. 8, 2007) (finding that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) does not require a trademark registration if a complainant can establish common law rights in its mark). Common law rights may be established through evidence of secondary meaning in the mark such as longstanding use, evidence of an identical domain name, media recognition, and promotional material and advertising. See Marquette Golf Club v. Al Perkins, 1738263 (Forum July, 27, 2017) (finding that Complainant had established its common law rights in the MARQUETTE GOLF CLUB mark with evidence of secondary meaning, including “longstanding use; evidence of holding an identical domain name; media recognition; and promotional material/advertising.”). Here, Complainant extensively used its NANO BANANA mark in various promotional and advertising materials. Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant established common law rights in its NANO BANANA mark, with rights predating the first registration of the disputed domain name.
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s NANO BANANA mark in its entirety and merely adds the generic/descriptive term “AI” (which stands for “artificial intelligence”) and the “.ai” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), adding a gTLD and/or digits is generally insufficient in differentiating a disputed domain name from the mark it incorporates. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) (“Where a relevant trademark is recognisable 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 Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Angelo Kioussis, FA 1784554 (Forum June 4, 2018) (“The domain name contains the mark in its entirety, with only the addition of the generic letters ‘sb’ and the digits ‘2018,’ plus the generic Top Level Domain (“gTLD”) ‘.com.’ These alterations of the mark, made in forming the domain name, do not save it from the realm of confusing similarity under the standards of the Policy.”); see also Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Angelo Kioussis, FA 1784554 (Forum June 4, 2018) (“The domain name contains the mark in its entirety, with only the addition of the generic letters ‘sb’ and the digits ‘2018,’ plus the generic Top Level Domain (“gTLD”) ‘.com.’ These alterations of the mark, made in forming the domain name, do not save it from the realm of confusing similarity under the standards of the Policy.”). Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Respondent is not licensed or otherwise authorized to use Complainant’s mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA1504001613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists “Dale Anderson” as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the statefarmforum.com domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)). Here, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “baird hu”. Thus the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The resolving website offers services that compete with those of Complainant. Past panels have declined to find a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of a domain name when a respondent diverts traffic to a site that offers goods or services that are in competition with those of a complainant. See General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum Mar. 10, 2016) (finding that “use of a domain to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a complainant’s business does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”). Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
The WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0”) states under 3.8.2:
As an exception to the general proposition described above in 3.8.1 [where a respondent registers a domain name before the complainant’s trademark rights accrue, panels will not normally find bad faith on the part of the respondent], in certain limited circumstances where the facts of the case establish that the respondent’s intent in registering the domain name was to unfairly capitalize on the complainant’s nascent (typically as yet unregistered) trademark rights, panels have been prepared to find that the respondent has acted in bad faith.
Such scenarios include registration of a domain name: (i) shortly before or after announcement of a corporate merger, (ii) further to the respondent’s insider knowledge (e.g., a former employee), (iii) further to significant media attention (e.g., in connection with a product launch or prominent event), or (iv) following the complainant’s filing of a trademark application.
Here, the record shows that the disputed domain name was registered shortly after Complainant’s announcement of its Nano Banana software, and further to significant media attention in connection with the launch of Complainant’s Nano Banana software. Thus, even if Complainant’s trademark rights did not predate the registration of the disputed domain name – which they do – the Panel would find bad faith registration. See also the discussion of opportunistic bad faith below.
Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant’s contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant’s mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name.
Indeed, as already noted, the resolving website offers services that compete with those of Complainant. A respondent’s use of a disputed domain name to drive Internet users to a commercial site offering goods or services that compete with those of a complainant may indicate bad faith attraction for commercial gain per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Citadel LLC and its related entity, KCG IP Holdings, LLC v. Joel Lespinasse / Radius Group, FA 1409001579141 (Forum Oct. 15, 2014) (“Here, the Panel finds evidence of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) bad faith as Respondent has used the confusingly similar domain name to promote its own financial management and consulting services in competition with Complainant.”); see also OneWest Bank N.A. v. Matthew Foglia, FA 1503001611449 (Forum Apr. 26, 2015) (holding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to direct Internet users to a website which competed with the complainant was evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)). Thus the Panel finds bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Further, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark: the resolving website references Complainant and its products and services. While constructive notice is insufficient to demonstrate bad faith, actual knowledge of a complainant’s rights in a mark prior to registration may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Custom Modular Direct LLC v. Custom Modular Homes Inc., FA 1140580 (Forum Apr. 8, 2008) (“There is no place for constructive notice under the Policy.”); see also Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) (“The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize ‘constructive notice’ as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it.”); 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). The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in its mark prior to Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name and that this constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Finally, the Panel finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain name opportunistically, because it registered the disputed domain name shortly after extensive media coverage of the launch of Complainant’s Nano Banana software. This constitutes bad faith registration and use. See GridPoint, Inc. v. Matt Giovanini, FA 1909399 (Forum Oct. 5, 2020) (“Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), opportunistic bad faith may be demonstrated by a Respondent registering a disputed domain name that integrates a distinct or famous mark, around the time of a certain event that creates interest or value in the disputed domain name.”); see also Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. harshit dhingaun, FA 1619696 (Forum June 10, 2015) (“Respondent registered the contested domain names within days after the announcement of Complainant’s sponsorship of India Fashion Week, thus demonstrating opportunistic bad faith in the registration and subsequent use of the domains.”). Thus, the Panel finds bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) on this ground also.
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 ainanobanana.ai domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: November 20, 2025
