DECISION

 

Google LLC v. Feng Jr

Claim Number: FA2606002228092

 

PARTIES

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

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <nano-banana.com>, 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 June 18, 2026; Forum received payment on June 18, 2026.

 

On June 19, 2026, Spaceship, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <nano-banana.com> 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 June 23, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 3, 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@nano-banana.com. Also on June 23, 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 13, 2026, Respondent requested, pursuant to UDRP Rule 5(b), an automatic four (4) calendar day extension to file its Response.

 

On July 17, 2026, Respondent requested an extension of 20 calendar days to file its Response. On the same day, Forum agreed to a partial extension, to August 3, 2026

 

Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On August 4, 2026, 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. 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. On August 12, 2025, Complainant released its NANO BANANA model on LM Arena; this is an AI-powered image editing model that allows users to edit images using text prompts. There was initial public commentary regarding Complainant's NANO BANANA offerings. Complainant owns common law rights in the trademark NANO BANANA.

 

Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its NANO BANANA mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety and merely adds a hyphen and the ".com" 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, the disputed domain name resolves to a commercial website that intentionally creates the impression that the website is operated by or affiliated with, sponsored or endorsed by, or otherwise authorized by Complainant in relation to its NANO BANANA software, and which has been used to promote Respondent's own competing commercial AI-powered image generation software under the identical name and trademark NANO BANANA. The WHOIS information is incomplete: Respondent's provided street address is "guangdong," Respondent's provided city is "shenzhen," Respondent's provided province is "guangdong," and Respondent's provided country is "CN." This is an invalid and incomplete address, as it does not include any postal code and incorrectly includes the Chinese province of Guangdong as the street address. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. The resolving website promotes competing products. Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in its marks. The WHOS information is false. Respondent engaged in opportunistic bad faith registration. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has common law rights in the NANO BANANA mark and uses it to provide AI-powered services.

 

Complainant's rights in its mark precede the registration of the disputed domain name.

 

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 displays Complainant's mark and promotes products that compete with those of Complainant.

 

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 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, FA 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 wide 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 disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's NANO BANANA mark in its entirety and merely adds a hyphen and the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). This does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). 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). Thus 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, 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 name lists the registrant as "Feng Jr". Thus the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

The resolving website promotes products 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). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant's contentions despite have requested, and been granted, an extension to reply) 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 promotes products 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 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)). 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 displays Complainant's mark and promotes products that are purported to be identical to those offered by Complainant. 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).

 

In addition, Complainant provides evidence showing that the WHOIS is incomplete, that is, false. This can indicate bad faith registration and use. See Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. John Doe, FA 1339545 (Forum Sept. 29, 2010 ) ("The Panel also takes into account that the entity that Responded to the Complaint would not be the registrant of the disputed domain names for the instant proceedings. Therefore, that circumstance is also taken by the Panel as indication of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) by providing false or misleading WHOIS information to the registrar."); see also Video Direct Distribs. Inc. v. Video Direct, Inc., FA 94724 (Forum June 5, 2000) (finding that the respondent acted in bad faith by providing incorrect information to the registrar regarding the owner of the registered name). Accordingly, the Panel finds bad faith registration and use on this ground also.

 

Finally, the Panel finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain name opportunistically, because it registered it 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 <nano-banana.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Richard Hill, Panelist

Dated: August 4, 2026