No bananas for Google

[meowmeow]

I am baffled by the UDRP decision by NAF panelist David E. Sorkin. Somehow the domain name nanobananaai.com was not found to satisfy the required elements for the complainant to win and was kept with the registrant.

For this type of domain, an absolute nonsense combination of words that no one ever used in commerce before a particular digital service came into existence, and the domain was registered by somebody only after the word combination became known to the public in connection with that particular service, one would expect a near certain victory by the complainant.

Is it the panelist flexing? "Watch me, I can even kick Google in the bananas".

Not sure it does any good when blatant squatters are being awarded a victory like that. Likely the opposite – undermines trust in the UDRP policy and gives strength to those who want to bend it in favor of trademark holders over domain registrants.

 

[AEProgram]

is it because nano banana has no trademark? Maybe someone with legal experience can tell us more

 

[jberryhill]

is it because nano banana has no trademark?

I'm going to go to my grave pointing out that "having a trademark" and "having a trademark registration" are two different things.

However, there is an exception made for cases like this one:

Probably a combination of a poorly-drafted complaint and a panelist who expected more evidence.

But, yes, the OP nailed it. Registering the combination of "nano" and "banana" immediately before a Google product launch is unlikely to be a coincidence of some kind.

 

[ARCCLOUD]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1983491632231239940

 

[katerleonid]

Very interesting case. So now he can sell it to Google?

 

[ARCCLOUD]

Probably a combination of a poorly-drafted complaint and a panelist who expected more evidence.

While the domain registration timing was indeed questionable at the very least, I do agree with this statement. It appears "I'm google grant this" was not enough here which is refreshing to everyday people.

 

[jberryhill]

So now he can sell it to Google?

Depending on how much he wants. Either they decide they don't care, or they file a lawsuit.

 

[fka1080405]

Not sure it does any good when blatant squatters are being awarded a victory like that. Likely the opposite – undermines trust in the UDRP policy and gives strength to those who want to bend it in favor of trademark holders over domain registrants.

I think this type of decision is good. The burden of proof is on the complainant: make a compelling case or lose. The fact that Google half-assed this complaint is embarrassing for them rather than an indictment of the UDRP process. The panel shouldn't be doing the complainant's job for them.

The product is called "Gemini 2.5 Flash Image" as all their literature states. The name "Nano Banana" was a codename for the project prior to release. The domain was registered before Google had acknowledged the name "Nano Banana". After the domain was registered and after the project was released, the name "Nano Banana" was adopted by the public because the real product name ("Gemini 2.5 Flash Image") is unwieldy.

I think it is pretty clear the registrant registered the domain because they saw the rumours about "Nano Banana" online and hoped to cash in but it's much less clear than if, for example, Google had announced a product called "Nano banana" and then the registrant registered the domain. And so, a much more compelling case must be made.

 

[jberryhill]

I think this type of decision is good. The burden of proof is on the complainant: make a compelling case or lose. The fact that Google half-assed this complaint is embarrassing for them rather than an indictment of the UDRP process. The panel shouldn't be doing the complainant's job for them.

Yep.

 

[jberryhill]

I think it is pretty clear the registrant registered the domain because they saw the rumours about "Nano Banana" online and hoped to cash in but it's much less clear than if, for example, Google had announced a product called "Nano banana" and then the registrant registered the domain.

Also yep. My understanding is that the name was floating around, and there may have been some people who believed it was coming out of Google, but I haven't dug into it very deeply.

But it is likely that this decision - with its peculiar facts - is going to be widely misinterpreted as, for example, the historic "meta" and "libra" threads on this forum attest, along with the legendary Googly Bear thread.

 

[CashproofDomains.com]

I am baffled by the UDRP decision by NAF panelist David E. Sorkin. Somehow the domain name nanobananaai.com was not found to satisfy the required elements for the complainant to win and was kept with the registrant.

For this type of domain, an absolute nonsense combination of words that no one ever used in commerce before a particular digital service came into existence, and the domain was registered by somebody only after the word combination became known to the public in connection with that particular service, one would expect a near certain victory by the complainant.

Is it the panelist flexing? "Watch me, I can even kick Google in the bananas".

Not sure it does any good when blatant squatters are being awarded a victory like that. Likely the opposite – undermines trust in the UDRP policy and gives strength to those who want to bend it in favor of trademark holders over domain registrants.

Yes — this case carries very high relevance.
Any dispute that reaches UDRP becomes notable, and even more so when Google is the complainant.

According to Domain Name Wire, Google released its AI image-editing / image-generation software under the name “Nano Banana” on August 12, 2025, through the LMArena platform. Ping Lin then registered the disputed domains on August 14 — just two days later. But the panelist David E. Sorkin denied the complaint, finding that Google had not provided enough evidence to prove that Nano Banana had acquired distinctiveness as a common law trademark in such a short time and also pointed out that Google had not publicly claimed trademark rights in Nano Banana and that the name does not appear on its published list of trademarks.

This sequence of events highlights an important point:

If Google had secured the obvious variations — such as bananaai.com, banana.ai, and related extensions — before launch, this situation might have been avoided entirely. Such registrations would have cost only a few dollars per domain, compared to the thousands of dollars now potentially required to recover them through UDRP or other legal avenues.

Based on the reported facts, the case does not currently appear strongly favorable to the complainant, which underscores how critical proactive defensive registration is — especially in today’s marketplace, where AI-keyword domains and .ai extensions have become increasingly valuable.

Many observers are now recognizing this value, while others remain frustrated — but the market reality is clearer than ever.

 

[jberryhill]

Thank you, AI chatbot.

 

[meowmeow]

Google won the bananas in the three-member panel case for nanobanana.ai, where panelist David E. Sorkin dissented in line with his previous solo decision, while two others ruled for Google.