DECISION

Google LLC v. Alan CHEN

Claim Number : FA2606002226320

 

PARTIES

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

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES

The domain name at issue is <nanobanana-studio.ai>, registered with  Name.com, Inc.

 

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.

 

Nathalie Dreyfus as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 9, 2026; Forum received payment on June 10, 2026.

On June 10, 2026, Name.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <nanobanana-studio.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 June 15, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 24, 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@nanobanana-studio.ai. Also on June 15, 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.

A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on July 23, 2026. On the same date, the Complainant submitted a Further Statement in reply to certain assertions raised in the Response.

On July 23, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Nathalie Dreyfus 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

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

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

The Complainant's contentions can be resumed as follows:

First, the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks. The Complainant relies on its prior rights in the NANO BANANA trademark, arising from several international trademark registrations claiming priority from September 4, 2025, as well as from common law rights acquired following the public launch of its artificial intelligence software "NANO BANANA" on August 12, 2025, given the trademark's inherent distinctiveness, significant market visibility, and extensive media coverage. The Complainant further contends that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to its trademark because it incorporates the NANO BANANA trademark in its entirety, with the mere addition of a hyphen, the descriptive term "studio," and a top-level domain, none of which is sufficient to avoid a finding of confusing similarity. The Complainant also submits that the Respondent's use of the Disputed Domain Name to offer identical or competing artificial intelligence services under the "Nano Banana" name demonstrates that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant's rights and deliberately sought to target its trademark and benefit from its reputation.

Second, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Moreover, the Disputed Domain Name is not being used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for any legitimate noncommercial or fair purpose. Rather, it resolves to a commercial website that creates the false impression of being operated, endorsed, sponsored, or otherwise authorized by Google, while promoting identical or competing AI-powered image-generation services under the NANO BANANA name. The Complainant further argues that the Respondent's knowledge of its prior and distinctive trademark rights, together with its deliberate diversion of Internet users to a competing commercial service, excludes any credible claim of coincidental adoption or legitimate use. Accordingly, the Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name.

Third, the Complainant contends that the Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. The Complainant argues that it is implausible that the Respondent selected the Disputed Domain Name independently or without knowledge of Google's rights. The Respondent allegedly registered a domain name incorporating the NANO BANANA trademark in its entirety and used it to attract Internet users to a commercial website offering identical and directly competing AI-powered image-generation services under the same name, thereby creating a false impression of affiliation with Google, disrupting its business, and seeking commercial gain from user confusion. Accordingly, the Complainant submits that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

The Respondent's contentions can be resumed as follows:

The Respondent argues that the Complainant had no registered trademark rights in NANO BANANA when the Disputed Domain Name was registered on August 30, 2025, since all of the registrations relied upon were granted later and the earliest claimed priority date, September 4, 2025, also postdates the domain name registration.

 

The Respondent further submits that the Complainant has not sufficiently established unregistered or common law rights as of the relevant date, only eighteen days after the term first appeared publicly and at a time when the model was not initially identified as originating from Google.

 

It also contends that the resolving website does not display Google's name or logo and makes no express claim of authorization, sponsorship, or affiliation, so any alleged impression of association must be supported by evidence rather than presumed.

 

Finally, the Respondent maintains that the allegations of bad faith are based on inferences concerning the timing of the registration and the website's content, rather than direct evidence of its knowledge or intent, and asks the Panel to assess the record as a whole before finding that the Complainant has met its burden under the UDRP.

 

C. Complainant's Additional Submissions

The Complainant's additional submissions can be resumed as follows:

The Complainant contends that it had already acquired common law rights in the NANO BANANA trademark by the time the Disputed Domain Name was registered, notwithstanding the absence of a registered trademark at that date. It submits that the trademark had rapidly acquired distinctiveness through the launch and extensive promotion of its AI software, as well as significant media coverage. The Complainant further submits that this position has already been recognized in a number of recent UDRP decisions, in which panels found that the Complainant had established common law rights in the NANO BANANA trademark shortly after the launch of its AI software and ordered the transfer of domain names registered shortly thereafter.

 

The Complainant further argues that the Respondent has failed to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. According to the Complainant, the Respondent's use of the identical NANO BANANA designation in both the Disputed Domain Name and on a website offering competing AI-powered image-generation services inherently suggests an association with the Complainant.

 

Finally, the Complainant submits that its contentions are supported not merely by inferences drawn from the timing of the registration and the content of the Respondent's website, but by evidence demonstrating that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant's NANO BANANA mark and deliberately sought to exploit its goodwill. The Complainant notes that the Respondent neither denies knowledge of the Complainant's mark nor provides any explanation for its selection and use of the identical NANO BANANA designation in connection with a website offering identical or competing AI-powered image-generation services.

 

FINDINGS

The Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name on the following date:

-       <nanobanana-studio.ai>: August 30, 2025

The Complainant, Google LLC, owns the following trademarks:

-       NANO BANANA, Singapore trademark No. 40202529520Q, registered on November 14, 2025, in class 42;

-       NANO BANANA, UK trademark No. UK00004294456, registered on January 30, 2026, in class 42;

-       NANO BANANA, Australian trademark No. 2613825, dated December 19, 2025, in class 42:

-       NANO BANANA, EU trademark registration No. 019297898, registered on May 21, 2026, in class 42;

These registrations claim priority from the Complainant's Tonga trademark application No. TO/M/2025/04930, filed on September 4, 2025.

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's first order of business is to establish that it has rights in a trademark, in order to subsequently satisfy UDRP's identical and/or confusingly similar analysis under Policy 4(a)(i). Subsequent to the satisfaction of these rights, Complainant must then offer compelling evidence that Respondent's contested domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark. 

UDRP 4(a)(i) does not distinguish between registered and unregistered trademark rights and UDRP Panels have found that a governmental registration is not required so long as a Complainant can establish common law rights. See Microsoft Corporation v. Story Remix/Inofficial, FA 1734934 (Forum July 10, 2017).

The Panel finds that the Complainant has submitted evidence supporting its claim to common law rights arising from the launch, promotion, media coverage, and market visibility of its AI-powered software "NANO BANANA" from August 12, 2025. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the NANO BANANA trademarks.

The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name, <nanobanana-studio.ai>, incorporates the NANO BANANA trademark in its entirety, with the omission of the space between the words and the addition of a hyphen and the descriptive term "studio." These additions do not prevent the trademark from remaining clearly recognizable and may instead reinforce an association with the Complainant's AI image-generation services.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights and that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy lists three circumstances in particular, without limitation, that demonstrate rights or legitimate interest of a domain name registrant to a domain name, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy:

(i)         before any notice of the dispute, the Respondent's use 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 and services;  or

(ii)        the Respondent, as an individual, business, or other organization, has been commonly known by the domain name, even if no trademark or service mark rights have been acquired;  or

(iii)       the Respondent is making a legitimate non‑commercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Once a prima facie case has been established, the burden shifts to Respondent to demonstrate that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy 4(c).

The Panel notes that the Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name for a commercial website offering AI-powered image-generation services that are identical to or compete directly with those offered by the Complainant under the NANO BANANA trademark. Such use creates a misleading impression that the website is operated by, affiliated with, sponsored by, or otherwise authorized by the Complainant.

The Panel also finds that, given the distinctive nature of the NANO BANANA trademark and the Respondent's use of the identical name for directly competing services, the Respondent's adoption of the Disputed Domain Name cannot reasonably be regarded as coincidental. The Respondent has not presented evidence capable of rebutting the Complainant's prima facie case or otherwise demonstrating any rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name.

The Panel finds that the use of a domain name incorporating the Complainant's trademark to divert Internet users to a competing commercial service does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under paragraph 4(c)(iii).

There is no evidence that suggests the Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name pursuant to Policy 4(c)(ii), or by the name "Nano Banana." Respondent is known to this Panel only as Alan CHEN.

The Panel notes that the Respondent has not been licensed, authorized, or otherwise permitted by the Complainant to use the NANO BANANA trademark.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy 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) of the Policy, including:

(iii) the Respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv) by using the domain name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's website or location or of a product or service on its website or location.

The Domain Name was registered on August 30, 2025, shortly after the launch of the Complainant's AI software under the name "NANO BANANA" on August 12, 2025.

The Panel finds that the Respondent incorporated the Complainant's NANO BANANA trademark in its entirety into the Disputed Domain Name and used it to operate a commercial website offering AI-powered image-generation services that are identical to, and directly compete with, those offered by the Complainant under the same name. Such use demonstrates an intention to capitalize on the reputation associated with the Complainant's trademark by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent's website, for the Respondent's commercial gain (see Yahoo! Inc. v. M & A Enterprises, WIPO Case No. D2000-0748; Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. Vasily Terkin, WIPO Case No. D2003-0888). This conduct disrupts the Complainant's business and constitutes evidence of bad faith under paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

The Panel finds that, given the distinctive nature of the NANO BANANA trademark, the publicity surrounding the launch of the Complainant's AI software, and the timing of the registration of the Disputed Domain Name, it is implausible that the Respondent selected the name independently and without knowledge of the Complainant's offering. Rather, the circumstances support the inference that the Respondent registered the Domain Name with the Complainant's trademark specifically in mind, with a view to exploiting its goodwill for commercial benefit.

Finally, the Respondent's use of a privacy or proxy service, although not conclusive in itself, constitutes an additional indication of bad faith when considered together with the other circumstances of the case as recognized in prior UDRP decisions (see Tudor Games, Inc. v. Domain Hostmaster, Customer ID No. 09382953107339, WIPO Case No. D2004-0630; WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.6).

All the circumstances set out above satisfy the Panel that Respondent was fully aware of Complainants' NANO BANANA trademarks when Respondent registered the <nanobanana-studio.ai> Domain Name and that Respondent registered the domain name in bad faith. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

 

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 <nanobanana-studio.ai> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

Nathalie Dreyfus, Panelist

Dated: August 4, 2026