DECISION

 

Google LLC v. yanng yanng

Claim Number: FA2606002227322

 

PARTIES

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

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME 

The domain name at issue is <banana-ai.org>, registered with Spaceship, 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.

 

Dr. Katalin Szamosi as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 15, 2026; Forum received payment on June 15, 2026.

 

On June 16, 2026, Spaceship, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <banana-ai.org> 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 June 18, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 28, 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@banana-ai.org. Also on June 18, 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 28, 2026.

 

Complainant submitted an Additional Submission on July 31, 2026.

 

Respondent submitted an Additional Submission on July 31, 2026.

 

On July 29, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Dr. Katalin Szamosi 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 is Google, which was ranked by Forbes the second most-valuable brand globally in 2020, and Brand Finance ranked Google as the third most-valuable brand in 2025. Complainant is a global company, with offices throughout North America, Europe, Latin America, Asia Pacific, Africa, and the Middle East. Google provides a wide range of goods and services, including its famous search engine, cloud computing, and various technology and software offerings.

 

Complainant asserts that Respondent is a serial cybersquatter who has lost two UDRP cases and settled at least one UDRP case. Complainant also contends that Respondent's disclosed name here, "yanng yanng" differs from the name in foregoing UDRP proceedings, but the Registrar's disclosure of registration data revealed the identical e-mail address. Accordingly, Complainant believes based on the information that Respondent is a serial cybersquatter. in this context Complainant also asserts that Respondent provided an incomplete, inaccurate, false address [provided city is "Oregon," postal code "97380," and country "CN," which is an abbreviation for China], and/or a false name to obscure Respondent's true identity to help evade detection.

 

1.       Complainant argues that under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) Respondent's <banana-ai.org> domain name (hereinafter referred to as "Disputed Domain Name") is confusingly similar to Complainant's NANO BANANA mark. In support of this Complainant asserts that:

·       Complainant owns numerous registrations for the NANO BANANA mark in the United States and globally;

·       Complainant claims first use in commerce as August 12, 2025 of the NANO BANANA mark, which predates the registration dates of the Disputed Domain Name; 

·       the first release of the NANO BANANA model was August 12, 2025 which predates the registration dates of the Disputed Domain Name [August 28, 2025];

·       The Complainant filed under Exhibit D examples of active trademark registrations for the NANO BANANA mark (hereinafter referred to as: "NANO BANANA mark");

·       Complainant has common law rights in the NANO BANANA mark which is a highly distinctive trademark and is used in connection with AI-powered image editing and generation models;

·       The Complainant filed under Exhibit E previous panel decisions confirming Complainant's common law rights in the NANO BANANA mark;

·       By the time [August 28, 2025] Respondent registered the Disputed 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 and image generation offerings;

·       Respondent's use of that domain name to offer identical and competing commercial products under the confusingly similar "BANANA AI" name and references on the associated website to Google and other Google products, demonstrate unequivocally Respondent's awareness of Complainant's trademark rights and Respondent's intention to target Complainant and its NANO BANANA brand.

·       The Complainant filed under Exhibit F evidence supporting Respondent's awareness of Complainant's trademark rights and his intention to target Complainant;

·       Complainant relies on the WIPO Overview 3.0 in support of its contention that, where at least a dominant feature of a complainant's trademark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark for the purposes of UDRP standing;

·       Panels have taken note of the content of the website associated with a domain name to confirm confusing similarity where it appears prima facie that the respondent seeks to target a trademark through the disputed domain name;

·       Disputed Domain Name resolves to a website that intentionally creates the impression that the website is operated by or affiliated with, sponsored or endorsed by, or otherwise authorized by Google in relation to its NANO BANANA software;

·       Respondent's use of the Disputed Domain Name clearly shows that Respondent is opportunistically trading off Complainant's reputation;

·       The inclusion of a small disclaimer of affiliation with Complainant on the site is not sufficient to mitigate confusion;

·       Panels have repeatedly found that the inclusion of descriptive terms and a TLD in a Disputed Domain Name does not diminish the confusing similarity with a complainant's mark

·       The notoriety of Complainant's offerings under the NANO BANANA mark and the fact that the recognizable and distinctive BANANA element of Complainant's NANO BANANA mark is incorporated in the Disputed Domain Name will cause users encountering the Disputed Domain Name to mistakenly believe the Disputed Domain Name originates from, is associated with, or is sponsored by Complainant.

 

2.       Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights and legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). In support of this Complainant asserts that:

 

·       Respondent is not licensed or otherwise authorized to use the NANO BANANA trademark;

·       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;

·       Whois records do not suggest that Respondent is known as Banana or Nano Banana;

·       Respondent has not used and is not using the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use;

·       Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name with a commercial 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;

·       The website under the Disputed Domain Name is being used to promote Respondent's own identical and competing commercial AI-powered image editing and generation services which use does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii);

·       The launch of Complainant's NANO BANANA offering was highly publicized; 

·       Previous panels have held that there can be no rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) when respondent was on notice that a complainant possesses strong trademark rights in a mark identical or similar to the Disputed Domain Name.

 

3.       Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). In support of this Complainant contends that

 

·       Respondent opportunistically registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith to promote Respondent's own identical and competing offerings for Respondent's own commercial gain, which is evidenced by Exhibit F;

·       The notoriety and distinctive qualities of Complainant's NANO BANANA mark, the timing of the domain name registration, and the content on Respondent's website, render it wholly implausible that Respondent independently and innocently registered the Disputed Domain Name;

·       Respondent's use of a dominant element of Complainant's NANO BANANA mark in the Disputed Domain Name to attract Internet users to website under the Disputed Domain Name where Respondent offers identical and directly competing software under the confusingly similar name and trademark BANANA AI constitutes bad faith use and registration under the Policy;

·       Respondent's timing and circumstances of the registration [shortly after the lunch of NANO BANANA AI] is also an indication of bad faith, which is also supported by WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 Section 3.2; 

·       Respondent's bad faith is further demonstrated by their use of an incomplete, inaccurate, and/or false address;

·       Respondent appears to be a serial cybersquatter who has lost multiple previous UDRP complaints.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent does not concede that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's NANO BANANA mark. In support of this position, Respondent asserts that:

·       BANANA AI is not confusingly similar to NANO BANANA when the two expressions are compared in their entirety;

·       all trademark registrations cited by the Complaint have filing or priority dates of September 4, 2025 or later, whereas Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name on August 28, 2025;

·       the United States trademark matter cited by Complainant is merely an application claiming a first-use date of August 12, 2025;

·       although these chronological circumstances do not, by themselves, defeat Complainant's standing under the first element of the Policy, they are relevant to the assessment of the second and third elements.

 

Respondent contends that he has rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). In support of this position, Respondent asserts that:

·       Respondent is an independent software developer who registered the Disputed Domain Name on August 28, 2025 and immediately began using it for an operational multi-model AI image-generation platform;

·       the Disputed Domain Name was neither parked nor offered for sale, and it was not registered primarily for resale;

·       before receiving notice of the dispute, Respondent had purchased the Disputed Domain Name, written and committed substantial source code, deployed a multi-model service, registered third-party users, completed image-generation tasks, and processed customer payments;

·       these activities began within days of registration and continued for several months, thereby constituting use of the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services;

·       Respondent's contemporaneous evidence demonstrates credible website development, investment, genuine business plans, and the actual pursuit of a business;

·       the word "banana" had a genuine personal significance for Respondent before the events relied upon in the Complaint: Respondent's family dog has been named 香蕉, the Chinese word for "banana," since at least 2019, as evidenced by a dog registration certificate dated May 17, 2019;

·       no later than May 8, 2025, more than three months before the events relied upon by Complainant, Respondent and his wife discussed developing the dog as a desktop AI pet or digital companion;

·       in the contemporaneous WeChat conversation, Respondent proposed a "Banana digital person," while his wife referred to "Banana Love" (香蕉爱, pronounced "Xiangjiao Ai") as "BANANA AI," meaning the digital version of "Little Banana";

·       Respondent does not contend that a completed electronic-pet product had already been launched, but relies on the conversation as evidence of the independent origin of the BANANA AI name and concept;

·       "banana" is an ordinary dictionary word as well as a documented personal name associated with Respondent's dog;

·       Respondent does not rely on the dictionary meaning alone; rather, he relies on the combination of the documented personal origin of the name, the contemporaneous naming record, and the corresponding genuine commercial use;

·       Respondent had a pre-existing multi-model development relationship, as evidenced by API-related communications dating from May 2025;

·       although the initial website contained a dedicated "Nano Banana" page and made that model commercially available, the model was only one component of a genuine multi-model aggregation service; and

·       the BANANA AI name had an origin independent of Complainant, and the initial implementation of the website did not identify the "Nano Banana" model as a Google product.

 

Respondent contends that Complainant has failed to establish that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). In support of this position, Respondent asserts that:

·       the third element requires proof of both bad-faith registration and bad-faith use;

·       subsequent conduct may be relevant to Respondent's intent, but it cannot replace evidence of Respondent's purpose at the time of registration;

·       the relevant inquiry is whether Respondent unfairly targeted or sought to abuse Complainant's Mark, having regard to the chronology, Respondent's knowledge and explanation, the history of the website, and other evidence of targeting;

·       Complainant's registered trademark filing and priority dates postdate Respondent's registration of the Disputed Domain Name;

·       Complainant must therefore rely on alleged common-law source significance arising from the anonymous appearance of the "Nano Banana" model on LM Arena on August 12, 2025 and the publicity that followed;

·       Complainant's own evidence shows that, as late as August 19, 2025, major media outlets continued to describe the model as "mysterious" and Google's involvement as speculative;

·       Google's involvement was publicly confirmed only on August 26, 2025, two days before Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name;

·       this compressed chronology makes direct evidence of actual targeting necessary and precludes a finding based merely on hindsight;

·       at the time of registration, Respondent had heard through informal AI-industry discussions that an image model called "Nano Banana" was producing good results, but knew only the name of the model and did not know the identity of its developer;

·       the anonymous appearance of the model on LM Arena on August 12, 2025 did not, in itself, constitute a public announcement that the model was a Google product;

·       there is no evidence that Respondent read Google's August 26 announcement, followed Google's official Gemini channels, received materials from Google, or searched Google's trademark filings before registering the Disputed Domain Name;

·       the most probative evidence of Respondent's state of mind consists of materials created before or at the time of registration, including the May 8 WeChat conversation documenting the independent BANANA AI name and digital-pet concept, as well as the May 2025 API communications evidencing a pre-existing multi-model development relationship;

·       Respondent did not register or acquire the Disputed Domain Name primarily for the purpose of selling it to Complainant or one of Complainant's competitors;

·       Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) is not applicable because the Sesame proceeding ended in a settlement without a decision on the merits, while the Superstroke and HDR proceedings have not been linked to Respondent through registrar-confirmed information;

·       a pattern of abusive domain-name registrations cannot be established on the basis of one settlement and two additional proceedings attributed to Respondent merely through an unsupported inference based on a name;

·       Respondent is an independent developer and not a competitor who registered the Disputed Domain Name primarily to disrupt Complainant's business;

·       although Respondent's multi-model service may commercially overlap with Complainant's activities in the AI image-generation sector, such overlap does not establish that disruption of Complainant's business was Respondent's primary purpose;

·       Respondent acknowledges that later versions of the website displayed the "Nano Banana" model name, a Google-style provider icon, and references to certain Google products;

·       the screenshots in Complainant's Exhibit F should nevertheless be assessed together with the source code from August 28, 2025 and the December 31 change history and cannot, without further evidence, retrospectively establish Respondent's state of mind at the time of registration;

·       after receiving Complainant's demand letter on April 14, 2026, Respondent promptly deleted the lines of code containing the expression "nano banana" and removed the challenged public references and provider imagery;

·       Respondent acknowledges that the underlying Spaceship registration address was inaccurate, explaining that the street address originated from outdated overseas virtual-card billing information retained through account or browser autofill, while the city, state, postal code, and country fields were inconsistently combined;

·       Respondent nevertheless supplied a genuine e-mail address and Chinese mobile telephone number, both of which remained under his control; and

·       while the inaccurate registration address constituted a compliance error, it does not establish that Respondent selected the Disputed Domain Name to target Complainant or Complainant's Mark.

 

C. Additional Submissions

Complainant

 

According to the Complainant, the Respondent concedes that it uses the Disputed Domain Name, <banana-ai.org>, to provide commercial AI-powered image-generation services that are identical or directly competitive with the Complainant's offerings. The Complainant disputes the Respondent's assertion that the website initially did not offer any Google-related models.

 

The Complainant relies on evidence showing that, on August 31, 2025—three days after the Disputed Domain Name was registered—the only offering promoted on the website under the Disputed Domain Name was "Nano Banana Free." The Complainant argues that the Respondent's subsequent addition of other AI models does not establish rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Rather, the Complainant submits that this conduct confirms that the domain name was registered and used to redirect Internet users seeking the Complainant's offering to competing services.

 

The Complainant therefore contends that the Respondent's use neither constitutes a bona fide offering of goods or services nor amounts to legitimate noncommercial or fair use under the UDRP.

 

The Complainant considers it implausible that the Respondent selected the Disputed Domain Name merely because its dog is named "Banana" or "Little Banana." In the Complainant's view, that explanation is inconsistent with the timing of the registration: the domain name was registered only weeks after the initial release of NANO BANANA and two days after the Complainant's public announcement.

 

The Complainant emphasizes that the Respondent admits having learned of the "Nano Banana" model name through informal discussions in the AI industry and having accessed the model through a third-party API aggregator. Although the Respondent claims not to have known that the model originated from Google, the Complainant argues that knowledge of the precise commercial source is not decisive. It is sufficient, according to the Complainant, that the Respondent recognized NANO BANANA as a brand or product identifier in the relevant market and sought to capitalize unfairly on its recognition through the Disputed Domain Name.

 

Finally, the Complainant argues that changes made to the website under the Disputed Domain Name after receipt of the Complainant's demand letter cannot cure or negate the Respondent's alleged bad-faith registration and use. In the Complainant's submission, bad faith must be assessed in light of the circumstances existing at registration and the Respondent's original use of the Disputed Domain Name, rather than subsequent remedial changes.

 

Respondent

The Respondent disputes the Complainant's assertion that he falsely claimed that the initial website did not offer any Google-related model. According to the Respondent, the Response expressly acknowledged that the website included a dedicated Nano Banana page and that the NANO BANANA model was commercially available through the service.

 

The Respondent maintains, however, that the subsequent identification of the model as a Google model does not establish that, when registering the Disputed Domain Name, he knew the model's commercial source or intended to exploit its association with Google.

 

The Respondent acknowledges that the Complainant's new evidence—a Wayback Machine capture dated August 31, 2025—shows that the website used Google- and Gemini-related wording and displayed "Nano Banana Free" as the selected model option on that date.

 

Nevertheless, the Respondent emphasizes that the capture was taken three days after the Disputed Domain Name was registered on August 28, 2025. It therefore does not establish:

 

·       the website's content or source-code state at the time of registration;

·       what, if anything, appeared on the website before registration;

·       when the Respondent learned the identity of the model's provider; or

·       that Nano Banana was the platform's only available model.

 

The Respondent accepts that the capture is relevant to the subsequent use of the Disputed Domain Name but argues that it cannot substitute for an assessment of why the domain name was selected and what the Respondent knew at the time of registration.

 

The Respondent rejects the Complainant's characterization of his naming evidence as a "fabrication." He argues that the Complainant has identified no alteration in the WeChat screenshots, no contradictory metadata, no defect in the dog-registration certificate dated 2019, and no reason to reject the separate declarations of the participants in the May 8, 2025 conversation.

 

According to the Respondent, this evidence documents an independent personal origin for the BANANA AI name, connected to the Respondent's dog and an earlier discussion concerning a digital version of the dog. The fact that the resulting image-generation platform did not ultimately become a dog-themed product does not, in his submission, negate that documented origin. The Respondent also reiterates that he never claimed that a completed electronic-pet product had actually been launched.

 

The Respondent acknowledges that he had heard of the name "Nano Banana" before registering the Disputed Domain Name. He maintains, however, that he did not know who had developed the model or that it was associated with Google, Gemini, or DeepMind.

 

More fundamentally, the Respondent argues that mere awareness of the NANO BANANA model name does not establish that he selected BANANA AI or registered the Disputed Domain Name for the purpose of capitalizing on the reputation or goodwill associated with NANO BANANA.

 

In substance, the Respondent contends that the Complainant's additional evidence may be relevant to the website's use shortly after registration, but it does not disprove the Respondent's evidence concerning the independent origin of the name or establish that he targeted the Complainant or its NANO BANANA offering when registering the Disputed Domain Name.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has used NANO BANANA for AI-powered image editing and generation software since August 12, 2025, and now owns registered trademark rights in that mark. The initial release generated immediate industry commentary. Google publicly confirmed the model on August 26, 2025. Respondent registered <banana-ai.org> on August 28, 2025.

 

Respondent admits that, before registration, he had heard of the NANO BANANA model through AI-industry discussion and had accessed it through a third-party API aggregator. Respondent also relies on substantial coding, API work, deployment preparations, user activity, and payment processing to establish a genuine multi-model business. The very extent of that work, and the fact that a functioning commercial platform appeared within days of registration, establish that the relevant AI-image service had been conceived and materially developed before the domain name was selected.

 

The August 31, 2025 archived homepage—three days after registration—used Google- and Gemini-related wording and promoted "Nano Banana Free" as the selected and featured model. Whether additional models were technically available elsewhere on the platform does not alter what Respondent chose to present to users on the homepage.

 

Respondent contends that "BANANA AI" derived independently from the family dog, named 香蕉 (Banana), and from a May 8, 2025 WeChat discussion about a digital version of the dog. The Panel does not find it necessary to determine that these materials were fabricated. Even accepting their authenticity, they do not credibly explain why the Disputed Domain Name was selected for a materially developed commercial AI-image platform that was not dog-themed and that, immediately after registration, prominently offered the very NANO BANANA model Respondent admits he already knew.

 

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 unregistered or common law trademark rights in the NANO BANANA mark. Such rights are sufficient for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), provided that the evidence demonstrates that the claimed mark has become a distinctive identifier associated by the relevant public with Complainant's goods or services. In assessing acquired distinctiveness, panels consider, inter alia, the nature and duration of use, the extent of advertising and promotion, actual consumer, industry, and media recognition, and the nature and scope of the complainant's market activities. The duration of use is not determinative in itself, as a mark may acquire recognition rapidly through a broad and significant Internet presence and user base. A respondent's demonstrated targeting of the claimed mark may also corroborate that the designation had already acquired source-identifying significance. See WIPO Overview 3.1, § 1.3.

 

Respondent's own evidence and admissions materially corroborate the mark's source-identifying significance. Respondent acknowledges that, before registering the Disputed Domain Name, he had heard of "Nano Banana" in AI-industry discussions as the name of an image-generation model and had accessed that model through a third-party API aggregator. This admission demonstrates that NANO BANANA was already recognized within the relevant market as identifying a specific AI model, rather than being understood merely as a dictionary phrase. Respondent's assertion that he did not then know that Google was the model's developer does not alter this conclusion.

 

The close temporal proximity, the identity of the relevant services, and Respondent's admitted prior awareness of the model name support the conclusion that NANO BANANA had already acquired trademark significance in the relevant market. This is precisely the type of respondent targeting that WIPO Overview 3.1, § 1.3 recognizes as supporting evidence that a claimed unregistered mark has achieved significance as a source identifier.

 

This conclusion is consistent with Google LLC v. zhiyuan luo, FA 2229875 (Forum July 23, 2026), in which the panel likewise found that Google had established unregistered trademark rights in NANO BANANA dating from August 12, 2025. See also Google LLC v. Kevin Dv, FA 2191538 (Forum Jan. 7, 2026).

 

The Panel recognizes that BANANA is a dictionary word and that the domain name omits NANO. In the relevant commercial context, "banana" is arbitrary rather than descriptive of AI image generation. Moreover, section 1.15 of WIPO Overview 3.1 permits the associated website and respondent conduct to confirm confusing similarity where the record prima facie shows targeting. Respondent's homepage presented "Nano Banana Free," used Google- and Gemini-related wording, and offered the same category of AI-image services. That content confirms that BANANA in <banana-ai.org> was being used in its NANO BANANA trademark sense, not in its ordinary fruit meaning or in connection with a dog-themed service.

 

Complainant argues that Respondent's Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's NANO BANANA mark. Complainant contends that (i) Disputed Domain Name incorporates the distinctive "BANANA" element and; (ii) the addition of the descriptive term "AI" does nothing to differentiate the Disputed Domain Name from Complainant's NANO BANANA mark. The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name incorporates distinctive BANANA and the addition of a descriptive term does not sufficiently distinguish the Disputed Domain Name from the NANO BANANA mark, on the contrary it strengthens the confusing similarity since the "AI" element describes the Complainant business / service. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognisable 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."). The inclusion of the gTLD ".org" in the Disputed Domain Name does not change the conclusion that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the NANO BANANA mark. See Dell Inc. v. pushpender chauhan, FA 1784548 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("Respondent merely adds the term 'supports' and a '.org' gTLD to the DELL mark. The Panel finds Respondent's disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's DELL mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."). Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's NANO BANANA mark within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

The Panel accordingly finds that Complainant has satisfied the first element of the Policy.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name to then enable the burden to, in effect, shift to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests.

 

Complainant did not authorize Respondent to use NANO BANANA mark; the registration data does not identify Respondent as "BANANA AI" or "Nano Banana"; and the Disputed Domain Name was used commercially for services identical or directly competitive with Complainant's AI image-editing and image-generation services.

 

Respondent's evidence of development and actual commercial activity does not, by itself, establish a bona fide offering under Policy Paragraph 4(c)(i). WIPO Overview 3.1, § 2.2 identifies contemporaneous evidence of a genuine, non-pretextual business plan and credible pursuit of that plan as factors that may support rights or legitimate interests, provided that the surrounding circumstances point away from cybersquatting intent. Development, investment, users, and payments are relevant only if the offering itself is bona fide. A respondent does not acquire rights or legitimate interests merely by investing in a commercial service that trades on another's mark. Forum panels likewise hold that use of a confusingly similar domain name for directly competing services is neither a bona fide offering nor legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Alcon, Inc. v. ARanked, FA 1306493 (Forum Mar. 18, 2010) ("The Panel finds that capitalizing on the well-known marks of Complainant by attracting internet users to its disputed domain names where Respondent sells competing products of Complainant is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).").

 

The pre-registration development evidence in fact undermines Respondent's claimed innocent explanation. The website and API integrations necessarily required substantial work before August 28. Thus, when Respondent selected the Disputed Domain Name, the intended use was already an AI-model platform—not a website about the dog, a digital pet, or any other use naturally connected to that personal name. Respondent's own evidence therefore establishes a disconnect between the asserted origin story and the actual service for which the Disputed Domain Name was registered.

 

The dictionary-word defense is equally unavailing. Under WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.10, merely registering a dictionary word does not confer rights or legitimate interests, and indications that the respondent is targeting a complainant undermine such a claim. "Banana" bears no descriptive relation to AI image generation. Its commercial relevance here arises from NANO BANANA, a model name Respondent admits he knew before registration.

 

Nor does the fact that other AI models were or later became available transform the use into a bona fide offering. A multi-model architecture may describe the breadth of Respondent's competing platform, but it does not explain the choice of <banana-ai.org> or neutralize the homepage's immediate promotion of "Nano Banana Free." Adding competing models merely broadens the commercial destination to which users attracted by the Disputed Domain Name are directed. It affects the breadth of the platform's functionality, not the bona fides of the domain-name selection.

 

Respondent's post-notice deletion of source-code lines, Google-related references, provider imagery, or other "nano banana" wording does not create rights or legitimate interests. Under WIPO Overview 3.1, § 2.11, claimed rights or legitimate interests are ordinarily assessed as at the filing of the Complaint, while the Panel may also consider the veracity and surrounding context of historical use. Here, the post-demand removals do not establish rights or legitimate interests because the Disputed Domain Name remained unchanged, continued to resolve to a competing commercial AI service, and the earlier use remains probative of the character of Respondent's offering. The relevant pre-notice use remains evidence of targeting, and remedial changes made after Complainant's demand cannot retroactively render that use bona fide. The domain name itself also remains unchanged and continues to identify a competing AI service by the same BANANA AI formulation.

 

The Panel accordingly finds that Complainant has satisfied the second element of the Policy since Respondent has failed to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

In view of the Panel the central issue is not the source-code, the issue is why Respondent selected and registered Disputed Domain Name and whether he did so to take unfair commercial advantage of Complainant's NANO BANANA mark.

 

The timing and circumstances of the registration strongly support an inference that Respondent targeted Complainant's NANO BANANA mark. Respondent registered the domain name only sixteen days after the model's August 12 release and two days after Google's August 26 public confirmation. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.2.1, expressly identifies the timing and circumstances of registration following a product launch, the content of the resolving website, changes to that content and their timing, and the plausibility of the respondent's explanation as relevant bad-faith factors. Section 3.8.2 further recognizes bad faith where a respondent registers a domain name to capitalize unfairly on nascent trademark rights following significant attention connected with a product launch.

 

Respondent had actual awareness of the precise model name before registration. The Panel finds that the Respondent's assertion that he did not then know Google was the model's ultimate developer does not answer the relevant question. Policy Paragraph 4(b)(iv) does not require proof that Respondent understood Complainant's corporate structure or the complete chain of source attribution. It is sufficient that he knew NANO BANANA as a source-identifying model name in the very AI market in which he intended to operate and selected a domain name calculated to evoke that identifier. Under WIPO Overview 3.1, sections 3.1.4 and 3.2.2, the nature and use of the domain name may establish that a respondent knew or should have known of the mark and intended to attract users through confusion.

 

A functioning platform prominently presenting "Nano Banana Free" three days after registration could not plausibly have been conceived and built from scratch during that three-day interval. Respondent's own evidence of substantial earlier coding and API work confirms that the service was planned and materially developed beforehand. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the August 31 capture is not being used to impose retroactive bad faith based on later conduct. It is contemporaneous circumstantial evidence of the purpose for which the Disputed Domain Name had been selected.

 

The Panel notes that the dog-name explanation is not credible as the operative reason for this registration. The Panel accepts that Respondent may own a dog named Banana and may have discussed a digital pet in May 2025. But the Disputed Domain Name was not used for a dog, pet, companion, or animal-themed project. It was selected for a commercial AI-image platform in which the known NANO BANANA model was immediately featured.

 

The additional AI models nor source-code revisions negate targeting. The existence of additional models addresses platform functionality, not domain selection intent. The Panel is of the view that the post-demand changes do not cure bad faith. A change made only after notice is therefore evidence to be weighed, not a defense that nullifies the registration and prior use. The post-demand changes are relevant evidence to be weighed under WIPO Overview 3.1, § 3.2.1, but they do not alter the purpose for which the Disputed Domain Name was registered or negate its prior bad-faith use. Separately, to the extent Respondent relies on the website disclaimer, WIPO Overview 3.1, § 3.7 confirms that a disclaimer cannot cure bad faith where the overall circumstances already establish it.

 

The Panel notes that Complainant submitted evidence showing that the registrant e-mail address is identical to the address associated with the respondent in a prior UDRP proceeding. Respondent disputes the legal significance and disposition of the prior matters but does not dispute the e-mail-address match itself. The Panel gives the undisputed match limited corroborative weight solely in identifying Respondent as the registrant involved in that prior proceeding. It is not necessary to determine that Respondent engaged in a Policy Paragraph 4(b)(ii) pattern, and the Panel does not rely on the Superstroke or HDR matters absent registrar-confirmed linkage. Even without any pattern finding, the present record independently establishes bad faith under Paragraph 4(b)(iv).

 

Finally, Respondent admits that the underlying registration address was inaccurate. The Panel does not treat that compliance failure as a substitute for proof of targeting. It nonetheless provides modest additional corroboration when considered with the timing, admitted awareness, website content, competing commercial use, and implausibility of the asserted explanation.

 

Based on the evidence the Panel finds that Respondent intentionally used the Disputed Domain Name to attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's NANO BANANA mark as to source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement. This constitutes registration and use in bad faith under Policy Paragraph 4(b)(iv). See Google LLC v. cary Brown, FA 2228162 (Forum July 17, 2026) ("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).").; Google LLC v. Roland C, FA 2223679 (Forum June 23, 2026) ("Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] 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 [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location.").

 

The Panel accordingly finds that Complainant has satisfied the third and final element 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 <banana-ai.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Dr. Katalin Szamosi, Panelist

Dated: August 12, 2026