DECISION

 

Google LLC v. Josh Walker

Claim Number: FA2601002202344

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Google LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Griffin Barnett of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Josh Walker ("Respondent"), North Carolina, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <antigravityai.org>, 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.

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm and Eduardo Magalhães Machado as Panelists and Georges Nahitchevansky as Chair.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 28, 2026; Forum received payment on January 28, 2026.

 

On January 29, 2026, Spaceship, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <antigravityai.org> 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 January 29, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 18, 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@antigravityai.org. Also on January 29, 2026, 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 February 26, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a three-member Panel, Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm and Eduardo Magalhães Machado as Panelists and Georges Nahitchevansky 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 it is an American multinational technology company specializing, inter alia, in internet-related services and software products, including AI software products. Complainant asserts that it is well-known and one of the most recognized and valuable brands in the world.

 

Complainant states that on November 18, 2025, it announced a new AI-powered software under the name and mark ANTIGRAVITY which allows users to deploy agents that autonomously plan, execute and verify complex tasks. Complainant contends that following the announcement, there was much unsolicited media coverage of the new ANTIGRAVITY software.  Complainant has provided evidence in that regard.

 

According to Complainant, on the same day Complainant announced its new ANTIGRAVITY AI-powered software, Respondent registered the disputed domain name. Complainant maintains that after registering the disputed domain Respondent posted a website at the disputed domain name that mimicked Complainant's website for its ANTIGRAVITY software. That website, however, is currently not accessible.

 

Complainant avers that it has filed trademark applications to register the ANTIGRAVITY mark. These were filed after November 18, 2025 claiming a  priority date of September 29, 2025, including applications in the European Union (No. 019305466), Canada (No. 2445317) and the United Kingdom (Nos. UK00004313580). Those applications are currently pending.

 

Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's distinctive ANTIGRAVITY mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety, merely adding the non-distinguishing abbreviation "ai" (for "artificial intelligence").

 

Complainant asserts that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as Respondent (i) is not licensed or otherwise authorized by Complainant to use the ANTIGRAVITY mark, (ii) is not commonly known by the ANTIGRAVITY mark, (ii) has not made any active bona fide offering of goods or service or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use and has simply used the disputed domain name with a website that creates the impression that the website is operated by, affiliated with, or sponsored or endorsed by Complainant.

 

Complainant further asserts that given the timing of Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name, and given Respondent's subsequent use of the disputed domain name for a website that contained references to Complainant, Respondent was clearly aware of Complainant's rights in the ANTIGRAVITY mark and opportunistically registered the disputed domain name.

 

Lastly, Complainant asserts that Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith in view of the notoriety and distinctive qualities of the ANTIGRAVITY mark, the timing of Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name and the content displayed on Respondent's website at the disputed domain name.  In all, Complainant maintains that Respondent acted opportunistically and in bad faith to take advantage of Complainant's rights in its ANTIGRAVITY mark for Respondent's benefit.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant holds trademark rights for the ANTIGRAVITY mark in connection with its services. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's ANTIGRAVITY mark. Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and that Respondent registered and has used the domain name 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 initial question before the Panel is whether Complainant owns trademark rights in the ANTIGRAVITY mark. Complainant asserts that it owns common law or unregistered trademark rights in the ANTIGRAVITY mark and has provided evidence supporting such contention. Complainant also maintains that it has filed a number trademark applications for the ANTIGRAVITY mark that are currently pending. The Panel notes that in these applications there is a priority claim of September 29, 2025 based on an application Complainant filed for the ANTIGRAVITY mark in Tonga on September 29, 2025.

 

In support of its claim of common law rights, Complainant has provided evidence regarding its adoption and use of the ANTIGRAVITY mark, the public announcement that was made by Complainant for the launch of its ANTIGRAVITY AI product on November 18, 2025, web pages from Complainant's website that appeared on November 18, 2025 that concerned the ANTIGRAVITY software, and examples of the unsolicited media attention that followed that day regarding Complainant's announcement of the ANTIGRAVITY software.

 

In all, the Panel is satisfied that as of November 18, 2025, Complainant had sufficient rights in the ANTIGRAVITY mark for purposes of the first element in connection with its new AI product. To be sure, Complainant as of the date of this Complaint has developed stronger common law rights in its ANTIGRAVITY mark given its continuous use of such with its AI-powered software product since November 18, 2025.

 

The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's ANTIGRAVITY mark in its entirety, and merely adds the descriptive abbreviation "ai" (for "artificial intelligence") at the tail of the disputed domain name along with the ".org" gTLD. Under Paragraph 4(a)(i), adding a gTLD and a descriptive term 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 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 Vanguard Group Inc. v. Proven Fin. Solutions, FA 572937 (Forum Nov. 18, 2005) (holding that the addition of both the word "advisors" and the gTLD ".com" did not sufficiently alter the disputed domain name to negate a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).

 

Given that the first element is essentially a standing requirement, because Complainant's claimed mark is fully incorporated and clearly recognizable at the head of the disputed domain name, and Respondent does not contend otherwise, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In order for Complainant to succeed under this element, it must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See 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"); see also Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).

 

There is no dispute that Respondent has no license or authorization from Complainant to use the ANTIGRAVITY mark. Moreover, it is clear that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain or by the ANTIGRAVITY name and mark.

 

Here, Respondent registered the disputed domain name, which fully consists of the ANTIGRAVITY mark with the abbreviation "ai" which relates directly to Complainant's artificial intelligence product, on the very day that Complainant announced the launch of its ANTIGRAVITY AI-powered software.  Respondent then posted a website at the disputed domain name that was designed to make the website appear as an official or authorized site of Complainant.

 

Respondent's website featured the very logo used by Complainant for its ANTIGRAVITY software, made mentions of Complainant throughout the website, included a copyright notice that listed Complainant as the copyright owner of the website and generally used text that was aimed to make it appear that Respondent's website was linked or connected to Complainant. Notably, the website also appears to have offered downloads of the ANTIGRAVITY product. It is not clear whether these were for actual downloads of Complainant's ANTIGRAVITY product, illicit copies of such, or as a subterfuge for some nefarious scheme. In any event, Respondent (i) had no authorization or license from Complainant to offer downloads of the ANTIGRAVITY software product, (ii) used a domain name that on its face was likely to be seen as connected to Complainant, (iii) included no disclaimer or information regarding Respondent on the website and (iv) attempted pass itself off as connected to Complainant. Such use of the disputed domain name, that copies Complainant's trademark for a website that passes itself off as connected to Complainant is simply not a legitimate use and does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services. See generally  WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions ("WIPO Overview 3.1") at sections 2.5.1, 2.5.3 and 2.8.1.

 

Based on the available record, the Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established in Complainant's favor.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Given the timing of Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name after Complainant's announcement of the launch of the ANTIGRAVITY software and the almost immediate unsolicited media coverage of such, it is more likely than not that Respondent was well aware of Complainant's adoption of the ANTIGRAVITY name and mark for its new AI-powered software. To be sure, as Complainant is a well-known company that is recognized for its technology, services and software products, it is highly likely that the announcement of a new product by Complainant quickly reached a sufficiently large and relevant audience and that the relevant consumers understood that the name and mark of Complainant's AI related software product was ANTIGRAVITY.

 

Respondent's same day registration of the disputed domain name that on its face conjures up Complainant's ANTIGRAVITY AI-powered software underscores that Respondent acted opportunistically and in bad faith. While Complainant may have only had nascent and yet unregistered trademark rights in the ANTIGRAVITY mark, Respondent clearly seized on the opportunity to unfairly capitalize on Complainant's rights. See, Id. at section 3.8.2.

 

Respondent's actions after registering the disputed domain name further confirm Respondent's bad faith. Respondent posted a website that essentially attempted to pass itself off as a website operated by or connected to Complainant. Whether this was done for a nefarious purpose or simply for Respondent's profit remains unclear. But the fact that Respondent has chosen not to appear in this proceeding to explain or justify its actions says much about Respondent's actions and likely bad faith.

 

The Panel thus finds that the third element of the Policy has been established in Complainant's favor.

 

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 <antigravityai.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Georges Nahitchevansky, Chair

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Panelist

Eduardo Magalhães Machado, Panelist

 

Dated: March 10, 2026