Google has lost a UDRP cybersquatting complaint over the domain NanoBananaAI.com, after a panel found the tech giant failed to establish trademark rights in the term “Nano Banana.”
The Dispute
Google claimed it launched Nano Banana — an AI-powered image editing and generation tool — on August 12, 2025, via its LMArena platform. The tool quickly gained traction online, with social media buzz and a Business Insiderarticle speculating about Google’s involvement.
Just two days later, on August 14, Chinese registrant Ping Lin registered the domains NanoBananaAI.com and NanoBanana.ai, allegedly using them to promote a competing AI product. Google alleged that the domains redirectedusers and even reposted Google’s genuine X (Twitter) posts, creating the illusion of official affiliation.
Google argued that it had already built common law trademark rights in “Nano Banana” and that Ping Lin’s registration was a clear act of cybersquatting.
The Panel’s Decision
UDRP panelist David E. Sorkin rejected the complaint, finding that Google had not yet established sufficient trademark distinctiveness for such a new brand.
Sorkin noted that:
-
The Nano Banana name had been in public use for only two days before the domains were registered.
-
Google provided no evidence of commercial use strong enough to show secondary meaning.
-
The mark was not listed in Google’s public trademark filings or registry.
Because Google failed to meet the first element of the UDRP — proving trademark rights — the panel did not need to evaluate bad faith registration.
Context and Next Steps
It’s notoriously difficult for companies to win domain disputes over recently launched brands, even when the domain’s intent to capitalize on the buzz seems obvious.
Google still has two ongoing UDRP cases involving:
-
NanoBanana.ai
-
NanoBananaGoogle.com
Both domains are actively targeting its Nano Banana platform, and future rulings may test the limits of how quickly common law rights can form in fast-moving tech launches.
Representation
-
Google represented by: Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
-
Respondent: Ping Lin (China) — no response filed.
OMWEB Insight:
This case highlights a persistent challenge for major tech brands — speed vs. legal protection. When new products debut before trademarks are filed, opportunistic registrations can slip in, leaving companies temporarily powerless under UDRP.
