DECISION

 

Google LLC v. rodger lai

Claim Number: FA2511002191543

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Google LLC ("Complainant"), represented by James R. Davis of Morgan of Lewis & Bockius LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is rodger lai ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <nanabanana.ai>, registered with Spaceship, Inc.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certify that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflicts in serving as Panelists in this proceeding.

 

Richard W. Hill and Adam Taylor as Panelists, and Darryl C. Wilson as Chair.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on November 26, 2025; Forum received payment on November 26, 2025.

 

On November 27, 2025, Spaceship, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <nanabanana.ai> 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 December 4, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 20, 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@nanabanana.ai. Also on December 4, 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 January 20, 2026.

 

On January 26, 2026, pursuant to the Parties' request to have the dispute decided by a three-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard W. Hill and Adam Taylor as Panelists, and Darryl C. Wilson as Chair.

 

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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Google is a Delaware limited liability company located in Mountain View, California, USA. The GOOGLE name and company were created in 1998 by Stanford Ph.D. candidates Larry Page and Sergey Brin. Since that time, the Google 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.

 

Google is well-known for its high-quality and award-winning software products, including the recent launches of several new and high-profile AI software products. Over the past year, Google's releases of new AI software products have generated instant and significant press coverage and buzz among the consuming public.

 

Google owns common law rights in the highly distinctive trademark NANO BANANA, which it uses in connection with AI-powered image editing models that allow users to edit images using text prompts.

 

Google's popular NANO BANANA mark has been targeted by several cybersquatters that registered infringing domain names within days of Google's release of its software.

 

In recent UDRP cases with fact patterns that are nearly identical to the present, UDRP panelists have ordered the transfer of NANO BANANA domain names that were registered soon after Google released its software.

 

Respondent registered the <nanabanana.ai> domain name on August 27, 2025, 15 days after Google released its NANO BANANA software. Respondent registered the infringing domain name, and created an infringing website, with actual knowledge of Google's prior trademark rights and the software and services it provides under the NANO BANANA mark.

 

The timing of Respondent's registration of the infringing domain name, and the creation of directly competing services that reference Google and its NANO BANANA Mark, among other Google trademarks, demonstrate Respondent's awareness of Google's trademark rights for its very popular AI software, and Respondent's bad faith intention to confuse consumers and profit off the goodwill Google has created in its marks.

 

The <nanabanana.ai> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's NANO BANANA trademark, only substituting a letter "a" for a letter "o" and adding a gTLD.

 

Respondent is not licensed or otherwise authorized to use Complainant's marks. Unlicensed, unauthorized use of a third-party trademark in a domain is strong evidence that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name.

 

The evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that Respondent opportunistically registered and is using the infringing domain name in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

The disputed domain is not a confusingly similar name as it does not contain the Complainant's "Google" mark or any registered Google trademark in its entirety, nor does it purport to identify Google as the source of the website or services offered thereunder.

 

Respondent has rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name based on Respondent's (i) bona fide use of the domain name prior to notice of this dispute, (ii) independent and non-affiliated operation of the website, and (iii) good-faith adoption of a creative and non-descriptive name.

 

The disputed domain name was not registered or used in bad faith. Respondent did not register the disputed domain name for the purpose of selling, renting, or transferring it to the Complainant or to any competitor.

 

Respondent adopted the name "nanabanana" as a creative and arbitrary designation, inspired by the widely available English-language song titled "Nana Banana". The name was chosen for its playful and memorable sound, rather than to reference any trademark owned by Complainant.

 

Respondent provides an independent AI image and video generation service that integrates multiple third-party models from different sources. Such references are descriptive and functional, not source-identifying. Respondent does not present these model names as branding, does not claim ownership of the referenced technologies, and does not suggest sponsorship, endorsement, or affiliation by any model provider. 

 

The mere display of model names within a neutral selection interface cannot reasonably be construed as bad faith targeting, trademark misuse, or an attempt to mislead users as to source or affiliation

 

Respondent acknowledges that the phrase "Google Nano Banana AI Image

Editor" appeared briefly on the website "during an early stage of development". The phrase was used descriptively to reference perceived technical capabilities and was not intended to imply a connection with Complainant. Once Respondent recognized that such wording could cause confusion, Respondent promptly removed the phrase and implemented clear disclaimers.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant is Google LLC of Mountain View, CA, USA. Complainant was established under the GOOGLE name in 1998 and since that time has continuously offered a broad array of internet related technological products and services under its company name and numerous additional domestic and globally recognized marks. Complainant claims common law rights in its NANO BANANA mark which it has consistently used since at least as early August 12, 2025 in connection with its AI-powered image editing models.

 

Respondent is Roger Lai, of Shanghai, China. Respondent's registrar's information indicates a location address in Shanghai, China as well. Respondent registered the <nanabanana.ai> domain name on or about August 27, 2025.

 

Based on the reasons stated below Complainant has successfully proven all the elements necessary for its requested relief to be granted.

 

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

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, 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 numerous positive industry third-party commentaries and reviews.

 

Respondent contends that the disputed domain is not a confusingly similar name as it does not contain the Complainant's "Google" mark or any registered Google trademark in its entirety.

 

Respondent's contention is misplaced as the Complainant filed these proceedings based on its NANO BANANA common law mark and not any registered or unregistered "Google" mark in part or in full. Respondent does not contest Complainant's assertion of common law rights in the mark that is the subject of these proceedings.

 

A domain name is "nearly identical or confusingly similar" to a complainant's mark when it "fully incorporate[s] said mark." See PepsiCo. Inc. v. PEPSI SRL, D2003-0696 (WIPO Oct. 28, 2003) (holding pepsiadventure.net, pepsitennis.com, and others confusingly similar to Complainant's PEPSI mark since they "incorporate[ed the] trademark in its entirety"). Here, the infringing domain name is an obvious and nearly imperceptible misspelling of Complainant's NANO BANANA mark, simply substituting the letter "O" for the letter "A" and adding the ".ai" gTLD in reference to Complainant's AI-related software.

 

Previous panels have found that the inclusion of a gTLD in a disputed domain name does not diminish the confusing similarity with a complainant's mark. See Sears Holdings Corporation v. David Rahmany / Dme / N Rahmany, FA 1618201 (Forum June 8, 2015) ("As a general rule, the addition of a gTLD to a domain name does not adequately distinguish the domain name from the mark at issue. . . . To hold otherwise would be to eviscerate the UDRP because trademarks do not commonly contain a gTLD.").

 

The Panel here finds that Complainant has established common law rights in its NANO BANANA mark, with rights predating the registration of the disputed domain name and that Respondent's <nanabanana.ai> is identical and/or confusingly similar to Complainant's mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

The Complainant has proven this element.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel notes that 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 Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) ("Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests"). Complainant has made out a prima facie case here.

 

Respondent is not licensed or otherwise authorized to use Complainant's marks 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 names lists the registrant as "Rodger Lai".  Thus the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Foot Locker, Inc. v. Blezin Widmaer, FA 0113283 (Forum June 17, 2002) (finding registrant had no rights or legitimate interests in domain where "Respondent is not a licensee or authorized agent of Complainant.").

 

Respondent contends that it has rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name based on Respondent's (i) bona fide use of the domain name prior to notice of this dispute, (ii) independent and non-affiliated operation of the website, and (iii) good-faith adoption of a creative and non-descriptive name.

 

However none of Respondent's claims support such a conclusion. Use prior to notification of a UDRP does not make it bona fide. If unauthorized use via an identical or confusingly similar domain name occurs with knowledge of another's mark, that use is illegitimate, regardless of when the mark holder notifies the offender of a UDRP filing. See Belo Corp. v. George Latimer, D2002-0329 (WIPO May 16, 2002) (finding that registration of <providencejournal.com> demonstrated that respondent had notice of Complainant's strong trademark rights in THE PROVIDENCE JOURNAL and PROVIDENCE JOURNAL); see also DeepMind Technologies Limited v. Kay Jones, FA 2113033 (Forum Sept. 3, 2024) ("[I]t is pivotal to this proceeding, that by the time the Respondent registered the domain name...the Complainant had achieved a very high public recognition in the media and in the public psyche for its involvement and success in the artificial intelligence field…"). Here Respondent was obviously aware of Complainant and Complainant's mark at the time it registered the domain name as the website it resolved to made explicit reference to Complainant and Complainant's AI products.

 

Respondent's assertions that its website was independent and non-affiliated have no bearing on the element at issue. It is not who was running the website but instead the content of the website that undercuts Respondent's claim of right and legitimacy. Similarly Respondent's assertion that the domain name was adopted in good faith, even if believable, is irrelevant. Respondent's <nanabanana.ai> domain name is nearly identical to Complainant's NANO BANANA trademark. The only difference is that Respondent has substituted the letter "A" for the letter "O" in NANO and added the ".ai" gTLD, in reference to "artificial intelligence."

 

The infringing domain name resolves to a website that intentionally creates the false impression that the site is operated by or affiliated with, sponsored or endorsed by, or otherwise authorized by Google in relation to its NANO BANANA offerings. However Respondent's website is used to promote Respondent's own identical and competing commercial AI-powered image editing services under the infringing <nanabanana.ai> domain name. By using the illegitimate domain name in such a fashion Respondent is effectively imitating Complainant. See Heaven Hill Distilleries, Inc. v. Chloe Day, Case No. D2023-2453 (WIPO August 14, 2023) (stating that "a web user seeing the disputed domain name could reasonably believe that it is related to Complainant or its products….As such, the disputed domain name, in the absence of any credible explanation, essentially impersonates Complainant and cannot constitute a fair use or legitimate interest"); 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 here finds Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and further lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

The Complainant has proven this element.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Respondent registered and is using the infringing domain name in bad faith. The notoriety and distinctive qualities of Complainant's mark, the timing of the domain name registration, and the content on Respondent's website negate Respondent's assertions that Respondent independently and innocently registered the disputed domain name. See Google LLC v. Leo Yang, FA 2144206 (Forum Apr.1, 2025) ("Respondent registered [<genie2.co>] incorporating Complainant's common law mark and corresponding to the name of an offering that had been announced by Complainant only one day earlier and has used it for a misleading website that attempted to pass off as Complainant, for what the Panel infers to be Respondent's commercial gain. Such circumstances are indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy.").

 

Prior panels have found respondents' registrations of infringing domain names incorporating Complainant's common law marks shortly after the release, marketing, and popularity of Complainant's goods and services has occurred as indicative of bad faith registration and use by Respondent under the UDRP. See Google LLC v. baird hu, FA 2185483 (Forum Nov. 20, 2025) ("[T]he disputed domain name was registered shortly after Complainant's announcement of its Nano Banana software, and further to significant media attention in connection with the launch of Complainant's Nano Banana software. Thus, even if Complainant's trademark rights did not predate the registration of the disputed domain name – which they do – the Panel would find bad faith registration...The Panel finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain name opportunistically, because it registered the disputed domain name shortly after extensive media coverage of the launch of Complainant's Nano Banana software. This constitutes bad faith registration and use"); see also Google LLC v. ORIGAI LLC / SHIHAO ZHANG, FA 2178075 (Forum Nov. 17, 2025) ("[T]he <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").

 

Respondent contends that its registration and use was not in bad faith since Respondent provides an independent AI image and video generation service that integrates multiple third-party models from different sources. Its operation thus generates references that are descriptive, functional, non-source identifying, nor suggestive of any relationship or affiliation with the parties identified in its references. Respondent's self-serving characterizations are unpersuasive. Respondent's use of Complainant's registered and common law marks on its website cannot be construed as reasonable as Respondent suggest. Registration of domain names with knowledge of another's identical or similar trademark has consistently been construed as bad faith registration and use. See Orbitz, LLC v. Rajiv Khatri, Service Network, LLC, WIPO Case No. D2015-1665 (WIPO Nov. 15, 2015)(stating "[t]he Respondent's registrations are in bad faith also because it arguably knew or should have known of the Complainant's mark at the time of registration. A standard trademark search would show the Complainant's mark"), see also Lemon Inc. v. Sumer Singh, FA 2110519 (Forum September 5, 2024 ("registration of a disputed domain name with actual knowledge of another's trademark rights is sufficient to establish bad faith and can be shown by the notoriety of the mark and the use the Respondent makes of the disputed domain name").

 

Indeed, until confronted by Complainant, Respondent prominently entitled its website "Nana Banana: Google Nano Banana AI Image Editor", thereby directly referencing Complainant's mark. The Panel rejects Respondent's claim that such phrase was used descriptively. In any case, Respondent admits that such wording "could cause confusion". 

 

In all the circumstances, the Panel does not find Respondent's claim that it selected its name by reference to the song titled "Nana Banana" to be credible.

 

On the contrary, the Panel considers that the disputed domain name constitutes an intentional misspelling of Complainant's registered mark, thereby further demonstrating the Respondent was fully aware of Complainant at the time of registration. See InfoSpace, Inc. v. Greiner, FA 227653 (Forum Mar. 8, 2004) ("Such a domain name evidences actual knowledge of the underlying mark prior to the registration of the domain name, and as Respondent failed to submit any evidence to counter this inferrence [sic], Respondent's actions evidence bad faith registration of the disputed domain name."); see also Cost Plus Management Services, Inc. v. xushuaiwei, FA 1800036 (Forum September 7, 2018)("Typo[-]squatting itself is evidence of relevant bad faith registration and use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to the mark of a UDRP complainant".).

 

Respondent's addition of a disclaimer to its website after receiving a demand letter from Complainant further supports a conclusion of bad faith registration and use. The disclaimer is insufficient as it would not mitigate the likelihood that most consumers will still be confused as to whether Complainant is somehow associated with Respondent's website. See, e.g., Google LLC v. ORIGAI LLC / SHIHAO ZHANG, FA 2178075 (Forum Nov. 17, 2025) (ordering transfer of <nanobanana.ai>, "[T]he 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."); See Discord Inc. v. Legato LLC / Ivan Talypin, D2021-3881 (WIPO Feb. 4, 2022). ("The [disclaimer] appeared only after the Respondent became aware of the Complaint, so it is more likely that its inclusion was made to cover the Respondent's tracks so to speak, and to create an appearance of legitimacy... "However, even if this disclaimer is taken into account, its presence (never mind the timing) would not render the Respondent's activities bona fide under the Policy. When Internet users have a chance to read the disclaimer they have already been attracted to the Respondent's website, under the impression that it is associated with the Complainant...").

 

The Panel here finds that Complainant has shown bad faith registration and use by Respondent per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

The Complainant has proven this element.

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that Complainant's requested relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <nanabanana.ai> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

         

Richard W. Hill, Adam Taylor, and Darryl C. Wilson (Chair), Panelists

Dated: February 2, 2026