DECISION
Google LLC v. ORIGAI LLC / SHIHAO ZHANG
Claim Number: FA2509002178075
PARTIES
Complainant is Google LLC ("Complainant"), represented by James R. Davis of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is ORIGAI LLC / SHIHAO ZHANG ("Respondent"), Wyoming, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <nanobanana.ai>, registered with Name.com, Inc.
PANEL
The undersigned certify that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelists in this proceeding.
Prof. David E. Sorkin and Ho-Hyun Nahm as Panelists and Alan L. Limbury as Chair.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on September 19, 2025. Forum received payment on September 19, 2025.
On September 23, 2025, Name.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <nanobanana.ai> domain name is registered with Name.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Name.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Name.com, 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 September 25, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 5, 2025 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@nanobanana.ai. Also on September 25, 2025, 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.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on November 4, 2025.
On November 7, 2025, Complainant submitted an unsolicited Additional Submission to Forum, to which Respondent objected that day.
On November 10, 2025, pursuant to Respondent's request to have the dispute decided by a three-member Panel, Forum appointed Prof. David E. Sorkin and Ho-Hyun Nahm as Panelists and Alan L. Limbury as Chair.
On November 12, 2025, Respondent submitted an unsolicited Additional Submission to Forum.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: SUPPLEMENTAL FILINGS
Pursuant to Paragraph 7 of Forum's Supplemental Rules, the Panel has discretion to accept and consider additional unsolicited submissions.
In the present case, it is not necessary for the Panel to determine the admissibility of the Additional Submissions, as they do not affect the outcome of this proceeding. See Scribe Opco, Inc., d/b/a Koozie Group v. The No Company Inc., FA 1994308 (Forum June 21, 2022).
PARTIES' CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
Complainant, Google LLC ("Google"), owns common law rights in the highly distinctive trademark NANO BANANA, which it uses in connection with an AI-powered image editing model that allows users to edit images using text prompts. Respondent registered the <nanobanana.ai> domain name on August 14, 2025, two days after the release of the model on LM Arena and initial public commentary regarding Google's new NANO BANANA offerings.
On information and belief, Respondent registered the <veom.ai> domain name on June 6, 2025, two weeks after Google publicly launched Veo 3, the third iteration of its AI-powered video generation offering.
The <nanobanana.ai> domain name is identical to Google's NANO BANANA mark. By the time Respondent registered the domain name, Google's NANO BANANA mark had become a source identifier through associated reputation and goodwill, and in connection with Google's well-known AI image editing offerings. Respondent's registration of the domain name amid widespread public discussion of Google's NANO BANANA AI software, Respondent's use of the domain name to imitate Complainant and its offering and Respondent's offer of an identical and competing commercial product under the identical "Nano Banana" name demonstrate Respondent's awareness of Complainant's rights, and Respondent's intention to target Complainant and its NANO BANANA brand. This is further demonstrated by Respondent's references to Google and its software and marks in the metadata and keywords for the website "www.nanobanana.ai".
Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the <nanobanana.ai> domain name. Respondent is not licensed or otherwise authorized to use Complainant's mark. Whois records do not suggest that Respondent is known as NANO BANANA. Respondent is using the domain name in connection with a commercial website that is clearly attempting to create the false impression that it is operated by or is affiliated with Google and its NANO BANANA software, or otherwise to attract consumers to Respondent's website and competing commercial offerings by using the identical NANO BANANA name and mark, to generate web traffic. This type of use does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use. Finally, a disclaimer added to the "www.nanobanana.ai" website after Complainant sent a demand letter to Respondent, is insufficient as it would not mitigate the likelihood that most consumers will be confused as to whether Complainant is somehow associated with Respondent's website.
Respondent opportunistically registered and is using the <nanobanana.ai> domain name in bad faith. The notoriety and distinctive qualities of Complainant's mark, the timing of the domain name registration, the content on Respondent's website (including source code referencing multiple trademarks owned by Complainant), and that Respondent opportunistically registered and used the <veom.ai> domain name in a similarly infringing manner, render it wholly implausible that Respondent independently and innocently registered the domain name.
According to WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 Section 3.2: "Particular circumstances panels may take into account in assessing whether the respondent's registration of a domain name is in bad faith include…the timing and circumstances of the registration (particularly following a product launch…or other indica generally suggesting that the respondent had somehow targeted the complainant.)" See, e.g., Google LLC v. Leo Yang, FA 2144206 (Forum April 1, 2025) (Ordering transfer of <genie2.co> where Respondent registered the domain name incorporating Google's GENIE common law mark and corresponding to the name of Google's Genie 2 offering that Google had announced only one day earlier.)
Here, Respondent registered the <nanobanana.ai> domain name after widespread public anticipation and discussion of Google's imminent Nano Banana image editing AI software. Complainant's use of Complainant's mark, the widespread, unsolicited media coverage associated with Complainant's offerings under Complainant's marks, and the opportunistic timing of Respondent's registration of the domain name clearly demonstrate that Respondent registered it in bad faith.
Respondent's pattern of targeting Complainant and its AI-related trademarks as shown by Respondent's registration and use of the <nanobanana.ai> domain name and the <veom.ai> domain name further demonstrate Respondent's bad faith conduct under the Policy. Respondent's bad faith is further demonstrated by a complaint filed with Better Business Bureau in which a consumer reported having been defrauded by Respondent's infringing website and use of Complainant's VEO mark. Given the nature of its registration and use of the <nanobanana.ai> domain name, Respondent's use of a proxy service to hide its actual registration information is further evidence of bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent, ORIGAI LLC / Zhang Shihao, respectfully requests that the Panel dismiss the Complaint and deny the transfer of the domain name <nanobanana.ai>, allowing Respondent to retain it.
Respondent is a student who graduated in 2024. While browsing the Internet, he happened to come across a netizen mentioning the nickname "Nano Banana." This name coincidentally matched the name of his puppy, "Nano," who particularly loved a banana-shaped toy. Inspired by this, Respondent registered the domain name. Respondent registered the <nanobanana.ai> domain on August 14, 2025, at which time Google had not officially announced any project or product named "Nano Banana," and "Nano Banana" had no established association with Google. In fact, Google officially released an AI image model named Gemini 2.5 Flash Image (codenamed "nano-banana") for the first time on August 26, 2025. This means that when Respondent registered the domain name, the corresponding name was not yet known to Respondent as a Google product codename or trademark.
Respondent has been learning programming skills. To commemorate meaningful time spent with Nano, Respondent established a website shortly after registering <nanobanana.ai> to showcase and experiment with AI image generation technology, sharing personal programming achievements. This site aims to let users experience advanced image generation and editing models and does not claim to be affiliated with or sourced from Google. The "Gemini 2.5 Flash Image" model and "Gemini Word" mentioned on the website are solely used to describe that the AI technology employed is an application-layer product developed based on Gemini. This serves to characterize the website's features and functionality, constituting fair use and not intended to impersonate Google. Upon receiving Complainant's correspondence, Respondent responded in good faith, stating that when registering the domain name, Google had not yet publicly released the "Nano Banana" name, and Respondent was unaware that "Nano Banana" referred to Google. However, given Google's status as a major corporation, Respondent feared both the resource drain of engaging in a dispute with such a large entity and, acting in good faith, added a disclaimer to the website in mid-September 2025 clearly stating that this site has no affiliation with Google. This action demonstrates Respondent's sincere intent to avoid confusion.
The <veom.ai> domain name was registered for a personal project exploring video generation. The term "veom" is an original name conceived by Respondent, distinct from Google's "Veo" trademark and unlikely to cause public confusion with Google's trademark. The <veom.ai> website was briefly operational to showcase Respondent's video generation technology demo and is currently inactive. Regarding the appearance of "Veo" in the <nanobanana.ai> webpage code, this resulted from Respondent's use of historical code from the <veom.ai> website for convenience during webpage design. Certain content was not fully purged, leaving residual code fragments. These remnants are not even displayed on the webpage. The term "Veo" would remain entirely invisible unless the public right-clicks to inspect the webpage source code.
On September 11, 2025, Complainant's counsel sent a cease-and-desist letter demanding Respondent cease using the NANO BANANA mark and transfer the domain name. Respondent replied via email on September 17, arguing that since Complainant had no registered trademark, their use of "Nano Banana" did not infringe any rights, and expressed willingness for amicable negotiations. On September 18, Complainant's counsel responded, emphasizing that trademark rights exist even without registration. They cited Respondent's registration of <veom.ai> as evidence of bad faith and demanded transfer of both domains. Respondent had already clarified the relevant facts, demonstrated clear goodwill, and made concessions in the September 17 reply. Yet Complainant proceeded to file this complaint, leaving Respondent no choice but to focus on preparing this UDRP response.
Complainant asserts unregistered trademark rights in NANO BANANA but fails to sufficiently demonstrate that the name possessed recognizable trademark meaning or goodwill prior to Respondent's domain registration. Under consensus UDRP views, Complainant must provide sufficient evidence that prior use has established a unique association between the name and Complainant in the relevant public's mind. In this case, Google first publicly referenced the "Nano Banana" codename on August 26, 2025. At the time of Respondent's domain name registration (August 14), the name had virtually no public recognition, let alone established trademark significance. Furthermore, "Nano Banana" is a combination of the common words "Nano" (meaning extremely small) and "Banana," and is not an inherently original term. Without trademark rights and an established association, it should not monopolize others' legitimate use. Appendix C submitted by Complainant in this case merely lists "Google" trademarks and bears no relation to the meaning of the NANO BANANA trademark. It should not be considered as evidence. Appendix D submitted by the Complainant fails to demonstrate that Google officially launched Nano Banana prior to the disputed domain name's registration date. Furthermore, the forum comment dates shown in Appendix D are highly ambiguous and cannot definitively indicate circumstances preceding the domain name dispute. Scattered user comments mentioning NANO BANANA do not constitute the Complainant's trademark use and cannot establish common-law trademark rights. Even if Complainant attempted to establish common-law trademark rights in its later response, the media commentary provided only demonstrates that the code gained attention after the domain registration, not before. In summary, <nanobanana.ai> does not conflict with Complainant's asserted trademark rights and at the time of registration, Respondent was unaware of any relevant rights claimed by Complainant.
In Google LLC v. Ping Lin, FA 2179459 (Forum, Oct. 28, 2025), the Panel denied relief at the threshold element (Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the UDRP Policy), holding that Google failed to prove common-law trademark rights in NANO BANANA. The Panel emphasized the high evidentiary burden to establish acquired distinctiveness under WIPO Overview 3.0 §1.3—e.g., duration/nature of use, sales, advertising, degree of public recognition, and surveys—and found Google's proof insufficient notwithstanding social media chatter and a media article. The Panel also noted that Google had made no public assertion of trademark rights in NANO BANANA, and that the term did not appear on Google's own published trademark list. This directly supports Respondent's position that Complainant lacked protectable rights at the time of Respondent's August 14, 2025 registration.
Put differently, even assuming some online "buzz," Forum found that such targeting-type inferences are not enough without concrete evidence of secondary meaning. Here, as in Ping Lin, Complainant still does not meet the Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the UDRP Policy burden. Therefore, the Complaint should be dismissed without reaching the remaining elements.
Respondent has rights and legitimate interests. Use was in good faith and not commercial bad faith. Respondent used the disputed domain name to showcase a personal technical project, not to profit by exploiting Complainant's goodwill. Pursuant to Paragraph 4(c)(i) of the UDRP Policy, Respondent's use of the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services prior to notice of the dispute establishes legitimate rights or interests in the domain name. In this case, Respondent had created the "Nano Banana" AI editor website prior to receiving the complaint for learning and sharing AI technology. Upon registration of the domain name, Respondent made no attempt to transfer the domain to Google or its competitors for valuable consideration. Instead, the domain name has been utilized by Respondent through substantive operational activities, including ongoing code submissions to the <nanobanana.ai> project on GitHub. The initial commit dates to August 14, 2025, aligning precisely with the domain registration date. Following the website launch, Respondent has further demonstrated operational commitment through trademark applications for NANO BANANA in the United States, Singapore, and the United Kingdom. This use is inherently in good faith, educational, and innovative in nature. Respondent did not misrepresent itself as Google to deceive consumers—the website added explicit disclaimers after receiving objections, and its interface and content clearly indicate it is an independent AI tool demonstration platform. Respondent never attempted to sell the domain name or profit from confusion with Google. For instance, the references to "Google" and "Gemini" in the website's source code cited by Complainant are due to Respondent's use of publicly available AI model interfaces provided by Google. Technically, referencing these names is necessary, which demonstrates Respondent's honest attribution of technical sources rather than counterfeiting. Respondent's use of "Gemini" constitutes an objective description of the website's services, not trademark use to indicate origin, aligning with fair-use provisions under the Lanham Act. Furthermore, Respondent is an individual, not a professional company, with no motive to exploit celebrity trademarks for traffic. The registration of <nanobanana.ai> stemmed from personal affection for Nano, genuine interest, and technical experimentation needs. Considering these factors, Respondent has legitimate rights and interests to use the domain name for the aforementioned legitimate purposes.
Complainant failed to meet the evidentiary requirements for "bad faith registration and use" under Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the UDRP Policy. First, at the time of registration, Complainant's alleged trademark rights were not publicly known, making it impossible for Respondent to have "maliciously" targeted a mark that did not exist or was unknown at that time. UDRP panel summaries explicitly state that where a domain name registration predates the formation of the complainant's trademark rights, it is generally difficult to establish the respondent's bad faith unless exceptional circumstances exist. This case does not fall under such exceptional circumstances. Although the Complainant alleges rumors or comments about the "Nano Banana" project in early August 2025, these constituted limited industry discussions and cannot be equated with formal public disclosure or widespread recognition. Moreover, Respondent received no warning from Complainant on the registration date, and no evidence indicates insider knowledge. A more plausible explanation is that Respondent registered the domain name purely out of interest in novel terminology, coincidentally before Google later publicly adopted the name as a codename. In other words, there was no bad faith at registration.
Second, regarding domain name usage, Respondent did not engage in any of the malicious acts listed in Paragraph 4(b) of the UDRP Policy: there was no intent to sell the domain name to Complainant at an inflated price, nor was there a pattern of behavior aimed at preventing Complainant from registering the domain name. The only other domain name, <veom.ai>, served an independent technical purpose unrelated to this dispute. The inadvertent remnant of "Veo" in Respondent's webpage code does not display during normal browsing. It is not used as a mark, and the relevant public would not notice it without viewing the code, let alone be confused. Therefore, Respondent did not register the domain name primarily to hinder Complainant's business; nor did it engage in impersonation to gain commercial advantage—instead, Respondent added a disclaimer and promptly addressed Complainant's concerns. While Complainant alleges Respondent's website content may cause confusion, it must be emphasized that Respondent did not actively "intend" to cause confusion. Any potential initial confusion was mitigated by measures taken by Respondent upon becoming aware of the issue. These good-faith actions and cooperative conduct demonstrate that Respondent had no subjective intent to unfairly capitalize on Complainant's reputation. In summary, Complainant has failed to establish that the domain name was registered and used in bad faith by Respondent. The Panel should therefore dismiss the Complaint.
Google's commercial adoption of the "Nano Banana" designation occurred subsequent to the registration of the disputed domain name. Moreover, the evidence proffered by Complainant falls considerably short of meeting the requisite evidentiary threshold to establish common law trademark rights under the UDRP framework.
FINDINGS
By a majority, the Panel finds that Complainant has established all the elements entitling it to relief.
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 relevant date by which a complainant must show that it acquired relevant trademark rights is not the date of registration of the disputed domain name but the date of the filing of the complaint.
On August 12, 2025, without revealing its identity, Complainant released on the publicly available LM Arena platform an AI-powered software model named "Nano Banana" that allows users to edit images using text prompts on the Google Gemini platform.
Exhibit D to the Complaint shows that there was immediate widespread public commentary, including on Reddit, regarding the "Nano Banana" software model and speculation that Complainant created it. As noted by Respondent, Google officially released its AI image model named Gemini 2.5 Flash Image (codenamed "nano-banana") for the first time on August 26, 2025. Thereafter the public commentary continued.
In today's digital environment, a mark may acquire source-identifying significance in an exceptionally short period, where it is exposed to a sufficiently large and relevant audience. 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 release. In addition, NANO BANANA 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 in these circumstances.
By a majority, the Panel finds that Complainant had acquired common law trademark rights in NANO BANANA by the time the Complaint was filed on September 19, 2025.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate Respondent's rights or legitimate interests to the domain name for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(ii):
(i) before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
The <nanobanana.ai> domain name was registered on August 14, 2025, two days after Complainant anonymously released its "Nano Banana" software model to the LM Arena platform. It resolves to a website prominently headed "Nano Banana" and explaining that Nano Banana is a revolutionary AI image editing model that transforms photos using natural language prompts. The website states:
"You can try nano-banana on LM Arena or through our web interface. Simply upload your image, enter a text prompt describing your desired edits, and watch as nano-banana AI transforms your photo with incredible accuracy and consistency."
These circumstances, together with Complainant's assertions, are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the <nanobanana.ai> domain name. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Dryx Emerson / KMF Events LTD, FA 1849706 (Forum July 17, 2019).
As set out above, Respondent asserts that Respondent has legitimate rights and interests to use the domain name for legitimate purposes. Although the LM Arena website did not identify Complainant when, on August 12, 2025, it first displayed Nano Banana as an AI-powered image editing model that allows users to edit images using text prompts, the <nanobanana.ai> domain name, registered two days later, has been used by Respondent, who has been learning programming skills, to promote a virtually identical AI-powered image editing model, thus competing with whoever was behind the LM Arena model. Such use by Respondent of the domain name is not a bona fide offering of goods or services.
On September 24, 2025, Respondent applied to the USPTO to register NanoBanana as a trademark, Serial No. 99411219, claiming first use and first use in commerce at least as early as 07/04/2025. Several days earlier, Respondent applied to register that mark in the UK and Singapore. However, there is no evidence that Respondent has been commonly known by the domain name.
Despite Respondent's claim that the "Nano Banana" name coincidentally matched the name of his puppy, "Nano," who particularly loved a banana-shaped toy, Respondent's use of the domain name promotes an AI-powered image editing model virtually identical to that of Complainant. Under these circumstances the Panel finds that Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish Complainant's trademark.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.
Complainant has established this element.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is expressed in the conjunctive: "the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith" and Paragraph 4(b) sets out four illustrative circumstances, which, though not exclusive, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii), including:
(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.
The Panel notes that where a domain name registration predates the formation of the complainant's trademark rights, it is generally difficult to establish the respondent's bad faith unless exceptional circumstances exist. Respondent submits that this case does not fall under such exceptional circumstances. As set out in the WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 Section 3.8.1:
"Subject to scenarios described in 3.8.2 below, where a respondent registers a domain name before the complainant's trademark rights accrue, panels will not normally find bad faith on the part of the respondent. (This would not however impact a panel's assessment of a complainant's standing under the first UDRP element.)
3.8.2 Domain names registered in anticipation of trademark rights
As an exception to the general proposition described above in 3.8.1, in certain limited circumstances where the facts of the case establish that the respondent's intent in registering the domain name was to unfairly capitalize on the complainant's nascent (typically as yet unregistered) trademark rights, panels have been prepared to find that the respondent has acted in bad faith.
Such scenarios include registration of a domain name: (i) shortly before or after announcement of a corporate merger, (ii) further to the respondent's insider knowledge (e.g., a former employee), (iii) further to significant media attention (e.g., in connection with a product launch or prominent event), or (iv) following the complainant's filing of a trademark application."
In the present case, the <nanobanana.ai> domain name was registered two days after Complainant anonymously released its "Nano Banana" software model to the LM Arena platform. The obviously tech-savvy Respondent would have realized that whoever was behind the LM Arena "Nano Banana" software model was likely to have nascent trademark rights in NANO BANANA, despite being unaware that it was Complainant.
Under these circumstances, the Panel finds that the <nanobanana.ai> domain name was registered in bad faith with intent to take advantage of the nascent trademark rights of whoever turned out to be behind the LM Arena "Nano Banana" software model and that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent's website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's website and of the services promoted on that website. This demonstrates registration and use in bad faith to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Further, the Panel considers the disclaimer added to Respondent's website is insufficient to mitigate the likelihood that many consumers will be confused as to whether Complainant is associated with Respondent's website.
In making the above findings, it is unnecessary for the Panel to consider the circumstances under which Respondent registered the <veom.ai> domain name.
Complainant has established this element.
DECISION
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <nanobanana.ai> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Alan L. Limbury, Chair and
Ho-Hyun Nahm, Panelist
Dated: November 17, 2025
Dissenting Opinion of Prof. David E. Sorkin:
The evidence offered by Complainant in support of its asserted common law trademark rights in NANO BANANA is substantially the same as that offered in Google LLC v. Ping Lin, FA 2179459 (Forum Oct. 28, 2025). For the reasons expressed in that decision, I would find that Complainant has failed to demonstrate that it had acquired common law trademark rights by the time the Complainant was filed.
I concur in the Panel's decision in all other respects.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page