DECISION

 

Google LLC v. Duohao Wang

Claim Number: FA2605002224076

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Google LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Griffin Barnett of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Duohao Wang ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <banana-ai.net> ("Domain Name"), registered with Cloudflare, 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.

 

Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on May 29, 2026; Forum received payment on May 29, 2026.

 

On May 29, 2026, Cloudflare, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <banana-ai.net> domain name is registered with Cloudflare, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  Cloudflare, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Cloudflare, 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 June 4, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 24, 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@banana-ai.net. Also on June 4, 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 June 25, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith 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 is a United States company established in 1998.  Since that time, Complainant's search engine has become one of the most highly recognized Internet search services in the world and the Complainant provides a range of software and technology services. On August 12, 2025, Complainant released a significant AI-powered image editing model that allows users to edit images using text prompts, which it offers under the name and trademark NANO BANANA.  Complainant asserts rights in the NANO BANANA mark based upon registration with various national bodies including the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore ("IPOS") (e.g. Reg. No. 40202529520Q, registered on 22 January 2026). On August 27, 2025, just 2 weeks 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 <banana-ai.net> domain name.  The <banana-ai.net> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's NANO BANANA mark because it incorporates the "banana" portion of the NANO BANANA mark and adds the generic/descriptive term "-ai" (an abbreviation for "artificial intelligence") and the ".net" gTLD.

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name and Complainant has not authorized or licensed to Respondent any rights in its marks. Respondent does not use the Domain Name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the Domain Names in connection with a website ("Respondent's Website") where Respondent purports to offer competing AI-powered image editing services under the Complainant's NANO BANANA trademark, clearly evidencing an intention to pass itself off as Complainant or to create the impression that the Respondent's Website is operated by or is affiliated with, sponsored or endorsed by, or otherwise authorized by Complainant.

 

Respondent registered and uses the <banana-ai.net> domain name in bad faith. Respondent attempts to disrupt Complainant's business and attract, for commercial gain, users to the Domain Name where it offers competing AI-powered image editing services under the Complainant's NANO BANANA mark. Given the content of the Respondent's Website, which includes identical services offered under the Complainant's NANO BANANA mark, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the NANO BANANA mark prior to registration of the Domain Name.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant holds trademark rights for the NANO BANANA mark.  The Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's NANO BANANA mark.  Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the 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

Complainant has rights in the NANO BANANA mark through its registration with the IPOS (e.g., Reg. No. 40202529520Q, registered on 22 January 2026). Registration of a mark with the IPOS is sufficient to establish rights in that mark. See Thermo Electron Corp. v. Xu, FA 713851 (Forum July 12, 2006) (finding that the complainants had established rights in marks where the marks were registered with a national trademark authority).

 

The Panel finds that of the Domain Name <banana-ai.net> is confusingly similar to the NANO BANANA mark because it incorporates an abbreviated version of the mark (removing the NANO element) while adding the descriptive abbreviation "-ai" and the ".net" gTLD. Domain names which incorporate a recognizable abbreviation or portion of a mark are usually considered confusingly similar under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) while adding generic words and a gTLD is generally insufficient to create a distinction between a complainant's mark and a disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See Huron Consulting Group Inc. v. David White, FA 1701395 (Forum Dec. 6, 2016) (finding that Respondent's <huroninc.net> domain name is confusingly similar to the HURON CONSULTING GROUP and HURON HEALTHCARE marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) because in creating the domain name, the respondent contains the dominant portion of the marks and appends the term "inc" and a gTLD;  see Sainato's Restaurant and Catering Limited v. chen xue ming, FA 1781748 (Forum June 4, 2018) (finding the <sainatos.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the SAINATO'S RESTAURANT mark as it "appends the gTLD ".com" to an abbreviated version of the mark."); see also 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.").

 

In support of the above conclusion the Panel notes that section 1.15 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition states that "In some instances, panels have however taken note of the content of the website associated with a domain name to confirm confusing similarity whereby it appears prima facie that the respondent seeks to target a trademark through the disputed domain name."  In the present case, by reason of the facts outlined under the elements below, it is clear that Respondent has sought to target and indeed pass itself off as Complainant through the use of the Domain Name.  The Panel finds that the intention of Respondent to mislead Internet users into thinking it is Complainant or connected with Complainant confirms the confusingly similar nature of the Domain Name.

 

The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the 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 Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) and AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) ("Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names."). The Panel holds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case.

        

Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the NANO BANANA mark. Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant. WHOIS information can help support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, especially where a privacy service has been engaged. 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)); see also Kohler Co. v. Privacy Service, FA 1621573 (Forum July 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) where "Privacy Service" was listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name).  The WHOIS lists "Duohao Wang" as registrant of record. Coupled with Complainant's unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation or authorization between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

The Domain Name is presently inactive but prior to the commencement of the proceeding resolved to the Respondent's Website that passed off as an official website of the Complainant by offering identical services to those offered by the Complainant under the Complainant's distinctive NANO BANANA mark. The use of a confusingly similar domain name to resolve to a webpage that offers goods or services that compete with a complainant does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use; indeed it provides a false impression that the Respondent is affiliated with or authorized by Complainant. See Upwork Global Inc. v. Shoaib Malik, FA 1654759 (Forum February 3, 2016) (finding that Complainant provides freelance talent services, and that Respondent competes with Complainant by promoting freelance talent services through the disputed domain's resolving webpage, which is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor is it a legitimate noncommercial or fair use).  See also 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).").

 

The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

While noting that registration date of the Domain Name predates the registration date of the NANO BANANA mark, the Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that, at the date the Respondent registered the Domain Name, August 27, 2025, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant and its (then unregistered) NANO BANANA mark since Complainant had used the NANO BANANA mark since August 12, 2025 and the Complaint annexes an array of publicity material indicating that, by the registration date, the mark had a significant reputation within the AI image editing community.  Finally, there is no obvious explanation, nor has one been provided, for an entity to register a domain name that contains the BANANA element and use it to redirect visitors to a website offering competing AI-powered image editing services under the Complainant's NANO BANANA trademark other than to take advantage of Complainant's reputation in the NANO BANANA mark. In the absence of rights or legitimate interests of its own this demonstrates registration in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

        

The Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith under Policy ¶4(b)(iv) to create confusion with Complainant's NANO BANANA mark for commercial gain by using the confusingly similar Domain Name to resolve to a website offering competing AI-powered image editing services under the Complainant's mark.  Using a confusingly similar domain name to pass off as a complainant and offer competing services can demonstrate bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv) where the respondent used the disputed domain name to resolve to a website upon which the respondent passes off as the complainant and offers online cryptocurrency services in direct competition with the complainant's business); see also Citadel LLC and its related entity, KCG IP Holdings, LLC v. Joel Lespinasse / Radius Group, FA1409001579141 (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.").

 

 The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

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 <banana-ai.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist

Dated: June 26, 2026