DECISION

 

Google LLC v. he junz / hex

Claim Number: FA2606002225233

 

       PARTIES

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

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <bananaai.studio>, registered with NameCheap, 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.

 

Jonathan Agmon as Panelist.

 

       PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 3, 2026; Forum received payment on June 3, 2026.

 

On June 4, 2026, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <bananaai.studio> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, 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 8, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 21, 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@bananaai.studio. Also on June 8, 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.

 

On July 1, 2026, Respondent requested and received an extension of time to respond. A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on July 20, 2026.

 

On July 21, 2026, Complainant submitted a Further Statement responding to matters raised in the Response. The Panel finds no procedural prejudice in considering the submission.

 

On July 21, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Jonathan Agmon 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.

 

       RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

       PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

 

Complainant is the owner of the NANO BANANA trademark. The NANO BANANA Mark is registered and used in connection with AI-powered software that enables users to generate and edit images using text prompts.

 

Complainant states that its NANO BANANA model was first made available on the LM Arena platform, a public, web-based platform that evaluates large language models (LLMs) on August 12, 2025.

 

Complainant's various trademark registrations include:

 

-       Australian trademark registration no. 2613825 for NANO BANANA, registered on April 14, 2026;

-       Singapore trademark registration no. 40202529520Q for NANO BANANA, registered on 22 January 2026;

-       United Kingdom trademark registration no. UK00004294456 for NANO BANANA, registered on January 30, 2026; and

-       European Union trademark registration no. 019297898 for NANO BANANA, registered on May 21, 2026.

 

Complainant also asserts common law rights in the NANO BANANA trademark arising from the release of its AI image-generation model, the ensuing publicity and media coverage, and the recognition of such rights in prior UDRP decisions. Respondent registered the disputed domain name on September 5, 2025.

 

The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's NANO BANANA trademark. The disputed domain name incorporates the BANANA element of Complainant's trademark and adds the descriptive term "AI". The addition of the generic Top Level Domain ("gTLD") ".studio" does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. Complainant further submits that Respondent's website expressly referred to "Nano Banana" and offered AI image-generation services, which confirms that the disputed domain name was intended to target Complainant's trademark.

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent has no connection or affiliation with Complainant and has not received any license or consent to use the NANO BANANA trademark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent is using the disputed domain name for a commercial website offering AI image and video generation services which compete with Complainant's services. Such use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.

 

The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Respondent registered the disputed domain name shortly after the public emergence of Complainant's NANO BANANA offering and thereafter used "Nano Banana" prominently on its website in connection with directly competing services. Complainant also relies on Respondent's alleged registration and use of <antigravityai.io>, which Complainant contends similarly targets the name of another recently launched Google AI product and therefore supports an inference of a broader pattern of conduct directed at Complainant's AI offerings. Complainant submits that the cumulative evidence, including the Respondent's registration of <antigravityai.io>, Respondent's proposal for a payment of USD 55,000 following Complainant's demand, and the incomplete address provided in the registration record, shows that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name to attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating confusion with Complainant's trademark.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent requests that the Complaint be denied. Respondent states that this is not a typical cybersquatting case because the disputed domain name was used for an operating AI image and video generation platform and was not parked, used for phishing, used as a mere redirect, or listed for sale.

 

Respondent states that the disputed domain name does not reproduce Complainant's NANO BANANA trademark in its entirety and that "banana" is an ordinary dictionary word. Respondent acknowledges that its website referred to Nano Banana, but states that Nano Banana was only one model offered on a broader multi-model platform which also referred to non-Google models.

 

Respondent claims rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name based on its development and operation of the Banana AI platform before notice of the dispute. Respondent relies on GitHub and Vercel records, an archived page showing AI video functions and references to non-Google models, and a Stripe dashboard showing 106 successful payments and 200 newly created customer records in April 2026. Respondent submits that this evidence establishes demonstrable preparations to use, and actual use of, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of services.

 

Respondent denies that the disputed domain name was registered or used in bad faith. Respondent asserts that it registered the disputed domain name to operate an AI platform and not to sell it to Complainant or target Complainant's trademark. Respondent also states that the USD 55,000 figure formed part of a broader post-demand transition proposal concerning user migration, technical work, SEO and brand rebuilding, service continuity, releases and confidentiality, and was not a price for the disputed domain name alone. Respondent further disputes that <antigravityai.io>, the use of a privacy service, or the abbreviated historical address establishes bad faith.

 

C. Additional Submissions

Complainant states that the dictionary meaning of "banana" does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity because BANANA is arbitrary and distinctive in relation to AI image-generation services.

 

Complainant further states that Respondent's operation of a functioning multi-model platform does not create rights or legitimate interests where the disputed domain name and website were selected to capitalize on Complainant's trademark. Complainant submits that Respondent's knowledge and use of Nano Banana, the USD 55,000 proposal, the registration and use of <antigravityai.io>, and the incomplete registration information collectively establish bad faith.

 

       FINDINGS

-       Complainant owns rights in the NANO BANANA trademark, and the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the NANO BANANA trademark in which Complainant has rights.

 

-       Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, which Respondent has failed to rebut.

 

-       Complainant has established that Respondent registered and is using the disputed 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.

 

       Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) requires Complainant to show that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Registration of a mark with a trademark office suffices to establish the rights under the Policy. See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018). Complainant has provided evidence of its registrations for the NANO BANANA trademark.

 

However, since the registration of the disputed domain name predates the registrations for the NANO BANANA trademark, Complainant also asserts common law rights in the NANO BANANA trademark. In light of the model's release on August 12, 2025, the substantial media attention it received, and the distinctive nature of the designation for AI image-generation services, on the evidence, the Panel finds that Complainant had acquired common law rights before Respondent registered the disputed domain name. The Panel notes that Complainant's common law rights in the NANO BANANA trademark has been recognized in several prior decisions, including Google LLC v. GAI YA, FA 2192156 (Forum Jan. 19, 2026); Google LLC v. zhengmao sun, FA 2195046 (Forum Jan. 15, 2026); Google LLC v. yichao zeng, FA 2192677 (Forum Jan. 8, 2026); Google LLC v. Kevin Dv, FA 2191538 (Forum Jan. 6, 2026); Google LLC v. dallen sun, FA 2193245 (Forum Jan. 2, 2026); Google LLC v. cheng Xiao, FA 2192930 (Forum Dec. 31, 2025); Google LLC v. baird hu, FA 2185483 (Forum Nov. 20, 2025); Google LLC v. ORIGAI LLC / SHIHAOZHANG, FA 2178075 (Forum Nov. 17, 2025).

 

The disputed domain name <bananaai.studio> omits the NANO element and combines the recognizable and distinctive BANANA element with the descriptive term "ai," a reference to Complainant's AI-powered software, and the ".studio" gTLD. Where a mark is not reproduced in full, the question under the first element is whether the trademark, or a dominant feature of it, remains recognizable within the disputed domain name. See WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 1.7.

 

The Panel finds that the BANANA element is a dominant and recognizable feature of the NANO BANANA trademark, and this is not diminished by the omission of the NANO element or by the addition of the descriptive term "ai". Respondent's submission that "banana" is an ordinary dictionary word does not alter this conclusion, because (1) the disputed domain name is BANANAAI and not BANANA; (2) the term is arbitrary and distinctive in the context of AI-powered image-generation software; and (3) the Complainant's NANO BANANA was used and shown on the Respondent's website in connection with provision of competing services. See Google LLC v. Duohao Wang, FA 2224076 (Forum June 26, 2026), in which the Panel found <banana-ai.net> confusingly similar to the NANO BANANA trademark. Citing 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 Section 1.15 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, stating 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."

 

As discussed below, the Panel's finding that Respondent targeted Complainant and its trademark by offering competing services supports the finding of confusing similarity.

 

The ".studio" gTLD is a technical requirement of registration and is disregarded for purposes of the confusing-similarity analysis.

 

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's NANO BANANA trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

       Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) requires Complainant to show that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Once Complainant establishes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, the burden of production shifts to Respondent to show that it has rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. See WIPO Overview 3.1 at ¶ 2.1 and Google LLC v. Alex Xavier/ Alexander Xavier / Sustineri Foresight Ltd, FA 28296 (Forum Mar. 15, 2023).

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant has established registered and common law rights in the NANO BANANA trademark. Complainant is not affiliated with, nor has it licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use Complainant's trademark.

 

Next, it is up to Respondent to rebut the prima facie case made by Complainant. Respondent relies on GitHub and Vercel records, archived website content, customer records, and payment activity to establish that it operated a genuine multifunction, multi-model AI image- and video-generation platform. Such use must nevertheless be bona fide and must not be based on an attempt to capitalize on another party's trademark.

 

In this case, Respondent operated in the same field as Complainant, expressly used "Nano Banana" on the website under the disputed domain name, and offered AI image-generation services corresponding to those provided under Complainant's trademark. Respondent's use of other AI models on the platform does not overcome the evidence that the disputed domain name and associated website targeted Complainant's NANO BANANA trademark within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i). See WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 2.2.

 

Furthermore, Respondent's activities began after Complainant launched its NANO BANANA product and appear to have been directed, at least in part, toward creating an association with Complainant and profiting from the reputation of the NANO BANANA trademark. Respondent's website would likely lead an unsuspecting Internet user to believe mistakenly that Respondent and its website were associated with Complainant, its trademarks, or its products.

 

Respondent's activities cannot generate rights or legitimate interests where they were designed, at least in part, to target and/or profit from Complainant's reputation in the NANO BANANA trademark 

 

The Panel finds that Respondent has failed to rebut Complainant's prima facie case and therefore has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.

 

       Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The Panel finds that Complainant has established that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

The Panel is persuaded on the evidence that Respondent was aware of Complainant's NANO BANANA trade mark when it registered, prepared for and used the disputed domain name. Respondent registered the disputed domain name within weeks of the public emergence of the NANO BANANA offering and the substantial media attention that accompanied and continued after its launch, operated in the same field, and expressly referenced "Nano Banana" in the Generator section of its website in connection with competing AI image-generation services. Respondent did not deny that it had knowledge of the Complaint and its NANO BANANA trademark when it registered and subsequently used the disputed domain name, and admitted that previous versions of the website "referenced or supported Nano Banana as one of the image models."

 

Respondent submits that "Banana AI" combines the ordinary dictionary word "banana" with the descriptive term "AI", and that Nano Banana was only one model referenced on a broader multi-model platform. The Panel does not find that explanation persuasive in light of the timing of the registration, the overlap in services and Respondent's express use of "Nano Banana" on the associated website. Clearly Respondent selected the disputed domain name with Complainant's NANO BANANA in mind.

 

The Panel accepts that Respondent developed and operated a functioning and commercially active AI platform rather than parking the disputed domain name or not using it. That fact does not, however, establish good faith where the platform was operated under a domain name selected to evoke another party's trademark and specifically made use of the Complainant's NANO BANANA trademark. A genuine commercial operation may itself be the means by which a respondent seeks to capitalize on the resulting confusion. Indeed, here the Respondent provided evidence of sales which were quite likely, at least in part, a result of the Respondent use of Complainant's trademark. Respondent admitted that at least some Internet users reached the website after searching for the term NANO BANANA. 

 

The Panel has considered Respondent's remaining submissions but finds them unpersuasive. Respondent's offer to transfer the disputed domain name for USD 55,000 was made after Complainant's demand and is explained as part of a broader transition proposal. Although the Panel does not treat the proposal as decisive, the substantial amount sought, particularly in circumstances where the disputed domain name formed a central part of the proposed arrangement, is consistent with the finding of bad faith reached on other grounds. This amount is well beyond Respondent's documented out-of-pocket costs relating to the disputed domain name. See Caterpillar Inc. v. Holding Account, FA 1835712 (Forum Apr. 21, 2019) ("Respondent's apparent offer to sell the domain name for an amount which is in excess of its out-of-pocket costs indicates Respondent's bad faith registration and use of the domain name per Policy ¶ 4(b)(i)."); and World Wrestling Federation Entertainment, Inc. v. Michael Bosman, D1999-0001 (WIPO Jan. 14, 2000) ("Because respondent offered to sell the Domain Name to complainant 'for valuable consideration in excess of' any out-of-pocket costs directly related to the Domain Name, respondent has 'used' the Domain Name in bad faith as defined in the Policy.").

 

The Panel has also considered Respondent's use of incomplete registration information, which provides additional evidence of bad-faith registration and use and finds that it is further evidence of bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name.

 

Additionally, the Panel reaches its conclusion under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) without needing to determine whether Respondent's registration of <antigravityai.io> establishes a pattern under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii), but has taken into consideration that the evidence shows that the <antigravityai.io> domain name owned by Respondent included a link to the website under the disputed domain name, which further reflects Respondent's intent to target Complainant's reputation and goodwill.

 

In these circumstances, the Panel finds that Respondent intentionally used the disputed domain name to attract Internet users to its commercial website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's NANO BANANA trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of Respondent's website and services. Such conduct constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). The Panel therefore finds that 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 <bananaai.studio> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Jonathan Agmon, Panelist

Dated: August 6, 2026