DECISION

 

Google LLC v. wu zexin

Claim Number: FA2607002235225

 

PARTIES

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

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <nanobananaai.net>, registered with Spaceship, Inc.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 27, 2026; Forum received payment on July 27, 2026.

 

On July 29, 2026, Spaceship, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <nanobananaai.net> 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 July 30, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 19, 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@nanobananaai.net. Also on July 30, 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 August 20, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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

i) Complainant is a prominent entity operating within the search engine industry. Complainant is well-known for its high-quality and award-winning software products, including its recent launch of several new and high-profile AI software products. Complainant owns national and international trademark registrations for the NANO BANANA mark (inter alia, IP Australia Reg. No. 2613825, registered April 14, 2026; UKIPO Reg. No. UK00004294456, registered January 30, 2026; EUIPO Reg. No. 019297898, registered May 21, 2026; and Singapore Reg. No. 40202529520Q, registered November 14, 2025). These registrations claim a priority filing date extending back to September 4, 2025, based on Complainant's earlier-filed, pending Tongan application for the NANO BANANA mark (App. No. TO/M/2025/04930). Complainant also owns common law rights in the highly distinctive NANO BANANA mark, which is utilized in connection with AI-powered image editing and generation models that allow users to edit and create images using text prompts. In addition to its prior applications and registrations, Complainant's common law rights in the NANO BANANA mark constitute a recognized basis for establishing trademark rights in a UDRP proceeding under long-settled precedent. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's NANO BANANA mark, as it fully incorporates Complainant's NANO BANANA mark, followed by the descriptive term "AI," a clear reference to Complainant's AI related offerings provided under the NANO BANANA mark, and the ".net" TLD.

 

ii) Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent has not been licensed or otherwise authorized to use Complainant's mark, nor is Respondent commonly known by the disputed domain name or any variation thereof. Respondent is not making use of the disputed domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor is it engaged in any legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent is using the disputed domain name to host a commercial website that intentionally creates a false impression that the site is operated by, affiliated with, sponsored by, endorsed by, or otherwise authorized by Google in relation to its NANO BANANA offerings, and which is utilized to promote Respondent's own identical and competing commercial AI-powered image editing services under the identical NANO BANANA trademark.

 

iii) Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Given the fame and distinctiveness of the NANO BANANA mark, the timing of the registration, and the content presented on the corresponding website, it is entirely implausible that Respondent registered the disputed domain name independently and in good faith. Respondent's willful intent to infringe upon Complainant's intellectual property rights is evidenced by Respondent's registration and use of the disputed domain name. Respondent's incorporation of Complainant's NANO BANANA mark into the disputed domain name for the purpose of attracting Internet users to Respondent's website, where Respondent offers identical and directly competing software under the confusingly similar name and mark NANO BANANA, constitutes bad faith registration and use. Respondent's bad faith is further demonstrated by its provision of incomplete and inaccurate Whois information when it registered the disputed domain name. Respondent's use of a proxy service to conceal its underlying registration information is further evidence of bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

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

 

2. Complainant owns national and international trademark registrations for the NANO BANANA mark (inter alia, IP Australia Reg. No. 2613825, registered April 14, 2026; UKIPO Reg. No. UK00004294456, registered January 30, 2026; EUIPO Reg. No. 019297898, registered May 21, 2026; and Singapore Reg. No. 40202529520Q, registered November 14, 2025). These registrations claim a priority filing date extending back to September 4, 2025, based on Complainant's earlier-filed, pending Tongan application for the NANO BANANA mark (App. No. TO/M/2025/04930).

 

3. Complainant established common law rights in the NANO BANANA mark prior to the registration of the disputed domain name.

 

4. On August 12, 2025, Complainant released the first NANO BANANA model on LM Arena, which generated immediate public commentary and widespread, unsolicited media coverage regarding Complainant's NANO BANANA offerings.

 

5. The disputed domain name resolves to a website that promotes Respondent's own identical and competing commercial AI-powered image editing services under the identical NANO BANANA trademark.

 

6. Following Complainant's June 8, 2026 demand letter, Respondent replied on July 2, 2026, claiming to have added a website disclaimer. Complainant rejected this remedy as insufficient to cure the likelihood of consumer confusion and reiterated its demand for the transfer of the disputed domain name, to which Respondent has failed to reply despite multiple subsequent communications.

 

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 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 rights in the NANO BANANA mark through its national and international trademark registrations for the NANO BANANA mark (inter alia, IP Australia Reg. No. 2613825, registered April 14, 2026; UKIPO Reg. No. UK00004294456, registered January 30, 2026; EUIPO Reg. No. 019297898, registered May 21, 2026; and Singapore Reg. No. 40202529520Q, registered November 14, 2025). Each registration claims a priority filing date extending back to September 4, 2025, based on Complainant's earlier filed pending Tonga application for the NANO BANANA mark (App. No. TO/M/2025/04930).

 

It is well established that the registration of a trademark with a national or international authority is sufficient to confer rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy. In light of the evidence provided, including copies of trademark registration certificates and extracts from trademark registers of the relevant trademark authorities, the Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the NANO BANANA mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Complainant further contends that, in addition to its prior applications and registrations, it holds common law rights in the NANO BANANA mark, which, under long-settled precedent, is a recognized basis for establishing trademark rights in a UDRP proceeding.

 

The Panel notes that on August 12, 2025, Complainant released on the publicly available LM Arena platform an AI-powered software model named "NANO BANANA," which allows users to edit images using text prompts on Complainant's Gemini platform. There was immediate, widespread public commentary, including on Reddit, regarding the "NANO BANANA" software model and speculation that Complainant created it.

 

The Panel observes that in today's digital environment, a mark may acquire source-identifying significance in an exceptionally short period, provided that it is exposed to a sufficiently large and relevant audience. See Google LLC v. ORIGAI LLC / SHIHAO ZHANG, FA 2178075 (Forum Nov. 17, 2025); see also WIPO Overview 3.1, Section 1.3 (The length of time that the mark has been used is not itself determinative. Panels have noted that, nowadays, some brands may rapidly acquire recognition due to a broad and significant Internet presence and user base.).

 

In light of the publicly known popularity of the LM Arena platform, it is reasonable to infer that Complainant's NANO BANANA software achieved immediate and substantial market visibility upon its release. Furthermore, the NANO BANANA mark is inherently distinctive for AI image-generation software, as it is neither descriptive nor generic. Accordingly, it does not require an elevated degree of consumer recognition to establish secondary meaning, and Complainant's evidence supports a prompt acquisition of source-identifying significance under these circumstances. Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant had acquired common law trademark rights in the NANO BANANA mark by the time the Complaint was filed.

 

Next, Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <nanobananaai.net> is confusingly similar to Complainant's NANO BANANA mark, as it fully incorporates Complainant's NANO BANANA trademark, followed by the descriptive term "AI," a clear reference to Complainant's AI related offerings provided under the NANO BANANA mark, and the ".net" TLD. The Panel finds that the inclusion of a descriptive term and a TLD in a disputed domain name does not diminish the confusing similarity with Complainant's mark, and that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's NANO BANANA mark.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Section 2.1, WIPO Overview 3.1 ("Where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element.").

 

Complainant asserts Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use its NANO BANANA mark in the disputed domain name. Under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), where a response is lacking, relevant WHOIS information may demonstrate that a Respondent is not commonly known by a disputed domain name. The unmasked WHOIS information identifies Respondent as "wu zexin." There is nothing in the records to suggest that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Panel thus finds Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Next, Complainant contends that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, the disputed domain name is being used to divert Internet traffic away from Complainant's NANO BANANA AI products and services and toward Respondent's website, which offers AI-powered image generation services and products.

 

It is well established that a respondent's use of a confusingly similar domain name to promote services that compete with those of a complainant does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor does it amount to a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Insomniac Holdings, LLC v. Mark Daniels, FA 1735969 (Forum July 15, 2017) ("Respondent's use of <edcorlando.xyz> also does not qualify as a bona fide offering . . . the <edcorlando.xyz> domain name resolves to a site containing pay-per-click hyperlinks and advertisements . . . Since these kinds of advertisements generate revenue for the holder of a domain name, they cannot be noncommercial; further, they do not qualify as a bona fide offering").

 

Complainant has submitted screenshots of both its own website and the website to which the disputed domain name resolves. These materials show that the disputed domain name resolves to a website used to promote Respondent's directly competing commercial AI-powered image generation service under the confusingly similar name, "NANO BANANA AI." Respondent refers to itself as "NANO BANANA AI" to promote and offer its photo editor and enhancer products for sale.

 

The Panel finds that Respondent's use of the disputed domain name to misrepresent itself as Complainant, or to create a false impression of affiliation or endorsement, in order to promote and offer products and services competing with those of Complainant, does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor does it constitute a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).

 

The Panel notes that following Complainant's June 8, 2026 demand letter, Respondent replied on July 2, asserting the addition of a website disclaimer. The Panel considers that Respondent's subsequent addition of a website disclaimer following Complainant's demand letter does not cure its past behavior.

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case based on the foregoing facts. As Respondent has neither submitted a Response nor made any attempt to rebut Complainant's prima facie showing, the Panel concludes that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant contends that the disputed domain name resolves to a website designed to misrepresent itself as Complainant, or to create a false impression that it is operated by, or affiliated with, Complainant. Given the fame and distinctiveness of the NANO BANANA mark, the timing of the disputed domain name registration, and the content presented on the corresponding website, it is implausible that Respondent registered the disputed domain name independently and in good faith.

 

The Panel notes that the use of a disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant and to offer competing or counterfeit goods or services may constitute evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(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 domain name to operate a website passing itself off as complainant and offering online cryptocurrency services in direct competition); see also Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where respondent operated a website mimicking complainant's own, creating consumer confusion regarding affiliation).

 

As previously noted, the disputed domain name resolves to a website that promotes Respondent's own competing commercial AI-powered image generation software, a photo editor and enhancer, under the confusingly similar name and mark "NANO BANANA AI."

 

The Panel further notes that Respondent registered the disputed domain name just two days after Complainant publicly announced the launch of its NANO BANANA products and services. These facts support the conclusion that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith with the intent to target Complainant and its NANO BANANA brand.

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent's registration and use of the disputed domain name disrupt Complainant's business by diverting Internet users seeking Complainant to Respondent's own website for commercial gain, and that Respondent, therefore, registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and/or 4(b)(iv).

 

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 <nanobananaai.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist

Dated: August 21, 2026