DECISION

 

Google LLC v. GAI YA

Claim Number: FA2512002192156

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Google LLC ("Complainant"), represented by James R. Davis of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is GAI YA ("Respondent"), Hong Kong.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <nano-banana.pro>, 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 W. Hill and Charles Kuechenmeister as Panelists and Lars Karnøe as Chair.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on December 2, 2025; Forum received payment on December 2, 2025.

 

On December 3, 2025, Spaceship, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <nano-banana.pro> domain name is registered with Spaceship, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. 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 December 4, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 29, 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@nano-banana.pro. Also on December 4, 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 6 January 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a three-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard W. Hill and Charles Kuechenmeister as Panelists and Lars Karnøe as Chair.

 

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, the 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 Internet destinations for many years. Complainant has been honored numerous times for its technology and services and has received various industry awards.

 

Over the past year, Complainant's releases of new AI software products have generated instant and significant press coverage and buzz among the consuming public. As set forth in more detail below, the instant brand recognition and association between Complainant's AI software and its new trademarks have resulted in numerous instances of bad faith cybersquatters seeking to capitalize on Complainant's new trademarks and confuse consumers. Complainant's popular NANO BANANA mark has been targeted by several cybersquatters that registered infringing domain names within days of Complainant's release of its software on 12 August 2025. In this case the disputed domain name was registered two days later at 14 August 2025.

 

Complainant owns common law rights in the highly distinctive trademark NANO BANANA, which it uses in connection with AI-powered image editing models that allow users to edit images using text prompts.

 

The timing of Respondent's registration of the Infringing Domain Name, and the creation of directly competing services that reference Complainant and its NANO BANANA mark, among other Complainant trademarks, demonstrate Respondent's awareness of Complainant's trademark rights for its very popular AI software, and Respondent's bad faith intention to confuse consumers and profit off the goodwill Complainant has created in its NANO BANANA mark.

 

The Infringing Domain Name fully incorporates Complainant's NANO BANANA trademark and resolves to a website that intentionally creates the false impression that the site is operated by or affiliated with, sponsored or endorsed by, or otherwise authorized by Complainant in relation to its NANO BANANA offerings, and which is used to promote Respondent's own identical and competing commercial AI-powered image editing services under the identical NANO BANANA trademark. Respondent also uses the website to offer an AI-powered video generation model under the name "VEO 3," which is identical to the name and mark that Complainant uses to offer its own AI-powered video generation model. It is therefore undeniable that Respondent registered the disputed domain name, and created the infringing website, with actual knowledge of Complainant's prior trademark rights and the software and services it provides under Complainant's trademarks.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has common law 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 August 12, 2025.

 

Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.

 

The disputed domain name was registered on August 14, 2025.

 

The resolving website offers services that compete with those of Complainant. The resolving website references 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 from its launch of its NANO BANANA AI-powered image editing model on August 12, 2025 and was the subject of a variety of third-party commentary. Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has established common law rights in its NANO BANANA mark, with rights predating the first registration of the disputed domain name.

 

The Panel notes that several UDRP cases have confirmed that Complainant has established common law rights in NANO BANANA dating back to August 12, 2025, see Google LLC v. Kevin Dv, FA 2191538 (Forum Jan. 7, 2026), which cites previous cases.

 

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).

 

This is a case of merely adding a hyphen between the two recognizable word elements of Complainant's trademark and further it is well-established practice that the specific top level of a domain name such as ".pro" does not affect the disputed domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar. 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 Mrs. World Pageants, Inc. v. Crown Promotions, FA 94321 (Forum Apr. 24, 2000) (finding that punctuation is not significant in determining the similarity of a domain name and mark). It is found that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark NANO BANANA.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Respondent is not licensed or otherwise authorized to use Complainant's marks and is not commonly known by the disputed domain names: 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, FA 1613011 (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 names lists the registrant as "GAI YA". Thus the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names 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 under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).

 

For all the above reasons, the Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(2) of the Policy).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Given the circumstances of the case, including the provided information of the use and reputation and the well-known character of the Complainant's business and the contents of the webpage of the disputed domain name, it is inconceivable to the Panel in the current circumstances that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name without prior knowledge of the Complainant and the Complainant's mark.

 

The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. 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 disputed domain name has been put to use displaying, and still at the time of rendering this decision, displays Complainant's trademark and offers products competing with Complainant's for sale, which is an indication of bad faith. Furthermore, the Panel can't find any conceivable legitimate use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent that will not be infringing on Complainant's rights in the NANO BANANA trademark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy). See Citadel LLC and its related entity, KCG IP Holdings, LLC v. Joel Lespinasse / Radius Group, FA 1579141 (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 1611449 (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)); see also Morgan Stanley v. TONY / shentony, FA 1637186 (Forum Oct. 10, 2015) ("Respondent registered the disputed domain name [MORGANSTANLEY.ONLINE] in bad faith because . . . it is difficult to envisage any use of the disputed domain name that would not violate the Policy"); see also Singapore Airlines Ltd. v. European Travel Network, D2000-0641 (WIPO Aug. 29, 2000) (where selection of disputed domain name is so obviously connected to complainant's well-known trademark, use by someone with no connection with complainant suggests opportunistic bad faith); see also Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., Sheraton Int'l IP, LLC, Westin Hotel Mgmt., L.P. v. Jingjing Tang, D2014-1040 (WIPO Aug. 19, 2014) ("The Panel finds that the [WESTIN] Marks are not such that could legitimately be adopted by traders other than for the purpose of creating an impression of an association with Complainant. Thus, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith").

 

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 <nano-banana.pro> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

 

Lars Karnøe, Chair

Richard W. Hill, Panelist

Charles Kuechenmeister, Panelist

 

Dated: 19 January 2026