DECISION

 

Google LLC v. Ping Lin

Claim Number: FA2509002179459

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Google LLC ("Complainant"), United States, represented by James R. Davis of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, United States. Respondent is Ping Lin ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <nanobananaai.com>, registered with Dynadot 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.

 

David E. Sorkin as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on September 29, 2025; Forum received payment on September 29, 2025.

 

On October 4, 2025, Dynadot Inc confirmed by email to Forum that the <nanobananaai.com> domain name is registered with Dynadot Inc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dynadot Inc has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot 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 October 6, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 27, 2025 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@nanobananaai.com. Also on October 6, 2025, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 October 28, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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 uses NANO BANANA in connection with artificial intelligence image editing and generation software. Complainant made this software publicly available via the LMArena platform on August 12, 2025. The software promptly received public attention even before it was confirmed to be associated with Complainant, including third-party social media posts and an article in Business Insider published on August 19, 2025. Complainant asserts common law trademark rights in NANO BANANA arising from use and public recognition.

 

The disputed domain name <nanobananaai.com> was registered on August 14, 2025. The name is registered in the name of a privacy registration service on behalf of Respondent. Complainant states that Respondent also registered another domain name on the same date, <nanobanana.ai>, and that the <nanobanana.ai> domain name is the subject of a separate proceeding under the Policy.

 

The disputed domain name <nanobananaai.com> does not currently resolve to a website. It previously was used to redirect to the website at <nanobanana.ai>, which promoted a competing commercial AI-powered image generation offering under the identical name, "Nano Banana." A small disclaimer was added to the website shortly after Complainant sent a demand letter to Respondent. Respondent then replied to the demand letter, asserting a right to use the "Nano Banana" because Complainant did not own a corresponding trademark registration. Complainant alleges that Respondent has also promoted the disputed domain name on the X platform, where it has reposted genuine posts from Complainant and its employees in a manner that falsely suggests an affiliation with Complainant. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the <nanobananaai.com> domain name and is not authorized to use Complainant's NANO BANANA mark.

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent has engaged in similar conduct targeting a different trademark owned by Complainant. Complainant owns several trademark registrations for VEO, which it uses in connection with AI-powered video generation software. Complainant released Veo 3, the third iteration of this software, in May 2025. Complainant states that Respondent registered the domain name <veom.ai> two weeks after Complainant's launch of Veo 3, and alleges that Respondent has used that domain name to promote competing AI-powered software in a manner falsely suggesting a connection with Complainant.

 

Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <nanobananaai.com> is confusingly similar to its NANO BANANA mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Panel finds that Complainant has not demonstrated that it has rights in a relevant mark. Because this finding is dispositive, the Panel declines to enter findings as to the other elements set forth in the Policy.

 

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 of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; UDRP Perspectives on Recent Jurisprudence, §§ 0.2, 0.8 (updated June 2, 2025), available at https://udrpperspectives.org/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <nanobananaai.com> is confusingly similar to the NANO BANANA mark in which Complainant asserts common law rights.

 

A complainant relying on rights arising solely at common law has a fairly steep evidentiary burden under the Policy.

To establish unregistered or common law trademark rights for purposes of the UDRP, the complainant must show that its mark has become a distinctive identifier which consumers associate with the complainant's goods and/or services.

 

Relevant evidence demonstrating such acquired distinctiveness (also referred to as secondary meaning) includes a range of factors such as (i) the duration and nature of use of the mark, (ii) the amount of sales under the mark, (iii) the nature and extent of advertising using the mark, (iv) the degree of actual public (e.g., consumer, industry, media) recognition, and (v) consumer surveys.

 

. . . .

 

Specific evidence supporting assertions of acquired distinctiveness should be included in the complaint; conclusory allegations of unregistered or common law rights, even if undisputed in the particular UDRP case, would not normally suffice to show secondary meaning.

 

WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, supra, § 1.3. Accord UDRP Perspectives on Recent Jurisprudence, supra, §§ 1.1, 1.2, 1.3.

 

The fact that a respondent has targeted the putative mark is relevant but not sufficient to demonstrate acquired distinctiveness. See, e.g., Altera Digital Health Inc. v. felton lewis / FEBLABREC, FA 2111681 (Forum Sept. 12, 2024) (declining to find rights in ALTERA); Alliant Energy Corp. v. Billy Wood, FA 1959495 (Forum Sept. 13, 2021) (declining to find rights in WISCONSIN POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY); cf., e.g., Carvajal Pharmacy LTC, LLC v. zepde jed, FA 1999444 (Forum July 6, 2022) (finding rights in CARVAJAL PHARMACY, based in part on respondent's obvious targeting of complainant).

 

The evidence offered by Complainant of potential relevance to its rights in NANO BANANA includes the following:

 

(1) a printout dated September 17, 2025, of the Nano Banana page on Complainant's Gemini website; 

 

(2) printouts of other pages promoting Nano Banana, apparently from other websites operated by or associated with Complainant, generated on September 17 or 19, 2025;

 

(3) printouts of threads and posts on Reddit and X dating back as early August 12, 2025, referring to and discussing "Nano Banana" and in some instances speculating that it is connected with Complainant;

 

(4) an article published in Business Insider on August 19, 2025, regarding the recently released "nano banana" AI model, noting that it has been praised in recent posts on Reddit and X, and speculating that it is connected with Complainant.

 

In addition, Complainant notes that Respondent's website includes a claim that its "Nano Banana" offering runs on Gemini 2.5 Flash Image, a large language model offered by Complainant; and that the source code of Respondent's website includes references to Complainant and its VEO and GEMINI trademarks.

 

Complainant also asserts that Respondent's "Nano Banana" profile page on X includes instances "where Respondent has reposted genuine posts from Complainant and Complainant's employees in a manner that falsely suggests that Respondent's X profile and website associated with the Infringing Domain Name are affiliated with Complainant." This assertion appears to relate to a post from "Google Gemini App" dated August 26, 2025, promoting Complainant's "new native image generation and editing" software and urging users to "go bananas" but not otherwise identifying the software by name. This post appears to have reposted by Respondent on the same date, accompanied by the comment "Let's all go bananas."

 

The Panel notes that Complainant does not appear to have made any public assertion of trademark rights in NANO BANANA. The printout of its Nano Banana web page does not include any such assertion of rights, and NANO BANANA does not appear on the lengthy "[i]llustrative, non-exhaustive list of trademarks owned by Google LLC" that appears at <https://about.google/brand-resource-center/trademark-list/>.

 

Considering the limited evidence offered by Complainant regarding sales or advertising under the putative NANO BANANA mark and public recognition thereof, together with Complainant's own public use of the term unaccompanied by any claim of trademark rights, the Panel is inclined to find that Complainant has failed to meet its burden of demonstrating rights in a relevant mark as required by Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

 

As the Panel's finding on this element is dispositive of the present dispute, the Panel need not address the other elements set forth in Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

 

DECISION

Having considered the elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <nanobananaai.com> domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.

 

 

 

David E. Sorkin, Panelist

Dated: October 28, 2025