Gemini-free.com

The timeline behind gemini-free.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Google LLC v. Bui Quang Trung Claim Number: FA2607002233767 PARTIES Complainant is Google LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Griffin Barnett of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Bui Quang Trung ("Respondent"), Vietnam. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <gemini-free.com> ("Domain Name"), registered with GMO Internet Group, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com. 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 July 20, 2026; Forum received payment on July 20, 2026. On July 21, 2026, GMO Internet Group, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <gemini-free.com> domain name is registered with GMO Internet Group, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GMO Internet Group, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the GMO Internet Group, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com 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 24, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 13, 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@gemini-free.com. Also on July 24, 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 15, 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 Delaware limited liability company located in Mountain View, California, and is the operator of the Google search engine, one of the most well-known search engines. On May 10, 2023, Complainant announced the launch of an AI foundation model under the name and trademark GEMINI and since that date has offered a range of generative AI models and AI chatbot services under the GEMINI mark. Complainant asserts rights in the GEMINI mark based upon registration in various jurisdictions including with the European Union Intellectual Property Office ("EUIPO") (e.g. Reg. No. 019024122, registered September 2, 2025). The <gemini-free.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's GEMINI mark because the Domain Name incorporates the GEMINI mark in its entirety, merely adding the generic term "-free" as well as the generic top-level domain ("gTLD") ".com" to create the Domain Name. Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <gemini-free.com> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name and is neither an authorized user nor licensee of Complainant's GEMINI mark. 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 Name in connection with a website ("Respondent's Website") where Respondent purports to offer competing AI agent services under the Complainant's GEMINI mark, 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 <gemini-free.com> 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 agent services under the Complainant's GEMINI mark. Given the content of the Respondent's Website, which includes identical services offered under the Complainant's GEMINI mark Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the GEMINI 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 GEMINI mark. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's GEMINI mark. Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the use of 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 GEMINI mark based upon its registration with the EUIPO (e.g., Reg. No. 019024122, registered September 2, 2025). Registration of a mark with the EUIPO 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 the <gemini-free.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the GEMINI mark as it wholly incorporates the GEMINI mark and adds the generic term "-free" and the ".com" gTLD. The addition of a generic term along with a gTLD to a wholly incorporated trademark does not distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark. 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 Dell Inc. v. Protection of Private Person / Privacy Protection, FA 1681432 (Forum Aug. 1, 2016) ("A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs."). 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 GEMINI 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 "Bui Quang Trung" 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 GEMINI mark (stating that the chatbot services use the "official API GEMINI"). 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 Feb. 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 GEMINI mark, the Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that, at the date the Respondent registered the Domain Name, August 26, 2024, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant and its (then unregistered) GEMINI mark since Complainant had used the GEMINI mark since 2023 to offer AI services and had developed a significant global reputation in the mark at that point. Finally, there is no obvious explanation, nor has one been provided, for an entity to register a domain name that contains the GEMINI mark and use it to redirect visitors to a website offering competing AI agent services other than to take advantage of Complainant's reputation in the GEMINI 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 GEMINI mark for commercial gain by using the confusingly similar Domain Name to resolve to a website offering competing AI agent services. 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, 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."). 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 <gemini-free.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist Dated: August 14, 2026 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

Source of record: FORUM . Reproduced for research; FORUM is the authoritative source.