Nanobananaai.ai

The timeline behind nanobananaai.ai

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Google LLC v. Neil Smith / CODEONE LTD Claim Number: FA2606002226319 PARTIES Complainant is Google LLC ("Complainant"), United States, represented by Griffin Barnett of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, United States. Respondent is Neil Smith / CODEONE LTD ("Respondent"), United Kingdom. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <nanobananaai.ai>, registered with Porkbun LLC. 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 June 9, 2026; Forum received payment on June 10, 2026. On June 10, 2026, Porkbun LLC confirmed by email to Forum that the <nanobananaai.ai> domain name is registered with Porkbun LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Porkbun LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Porkbun LLC 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 8, 2026 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.ai. Also on June 18, 2026, 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. Forum subsequently extended the deadline for a Response to July 28, 2026, pursuant to a request by Respondent. Having received no formal response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On July 29, 2026, 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 a formal response from Respondent. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant has used NANO BANANA since August 12, 2025, in connection with AI-powered image editing and generation software models. Complainant states that the release of its initial NANO BANANA model received immediate public commentary and widespread unsolicited media coverage. Complainant owns trademark registrations for NANO BANANA in the United Kingdom and various other jurisdictions, and also asserts common law rights in the mark. The disputed domain name <nanobananaai.ai> was registered on August 17, 2025. The name is registered in the name of a privacy registration service on behalf of Respondent. The domain name is being used for a website entitled "Nano Banana: AI Image Generator Online(Free, No Limits)." The website offers or purports to offer AI-powered image editing services similar to those offered by Complainant. The copyright statement identifies the operator of the website only as "Nano Banana AI." Complainant alleges that the website is designed to create an impression that it is operated by or affiliated with Complainant, but that it is in fact promoting Respondent's competing commercial software under an identical name and mark. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name and is not licensed or otherwise authorized to use Complainant's mark. Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <nanobananaai.ai> 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 the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. 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 Select UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (version 3.1, 2026), available at https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview; 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) ("Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint."). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar The disputed domain name <nanobananaai.ai> incorporates Complainant's registered NANO BANANA trademark, omitting the space and adding the generic term "AI" and the ".ai" top-level domain. These alterations do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Google LLC v. Maxi Ka / boring ai / Alice, FA 2220383 (Forum July 6, 2026) (finding <nanobananaai.com> confusingly similar to NANO BANANA); Google LLC v. baird hu, FA 2185483 (Forum Nov. 20, 2025) (finding <ainanobanana.ai> confusingly similar to NANO BANANA). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights. Rights or Legitimate Interests Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization. Its sole apparent use has been for a misleading website that attempts to pass off as Complainant to promote competing services. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Google LLC v. Maxi Ka / boring ai / Alice, supra (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances); Google LLC v. baird hu, supra (same). Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." 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." Respondent used a privacy registration service to register a domain name incorporating Complainant's mark, and is using the domain name for a misleading website that attempts to pass off as Complainant to promote competing services. Such circumstances are indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., Google LLC v. Maxi Ka / boring ai / Alice, supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances); Google LLC v. baird hu, supra (same). The Panel so finds. DECISION Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <nanobananaai.ai> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. David E. Sorkin, Panelist Dated: July 29, 2026 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

Source of record: FORUM . Reproduced for research; FORUM is the authoritative source.