A cybersquatting panel disagreed with a panel’s decision in a prior case.
Last month, I wrote about how Google lost a UDRP it filed against the registrant of NanoBananaAI .com. In that case, the panel ruled that Google did not show common law trademark rights in the name Nano Banana. It had launched Nano Banana just days before the registration, and it released it without saying the company was behind it.
But Google has now prevailed in a similar dispute under the .ai cybersquatting policy filed against NanoBanana .ai.
The majority of this panel found that Google did have trademark rights:
In today’s digital environment, a mark may acquire source-identifying significance in an exceptionally short period, where it is exposed to a sufficiently large and relevant audience. In light of the publicly known popularity of the LM Arena platform, it is reasonable to infer that Complainant’s NANO BANANA software achieved immediate and substantial market visibility upon release. In addition, NANO BANANA is inherently distinctive for AI image-generation software, as it is neither descriptive nor generic. Accordingly, it does not require an elevated degree of consumer recognition to establish secondary meaning, and Complainant’s evidence supports a prompt acquisition of source-identifying significance in these circumstances.
One panelist, David E. Sorkin, found against Google, referring to the trademark decision in the prior case.
If you need a chuckle, you’ll appreciate the explanation the Respondent made for registering the domain:
Respondent is a student who graduated in 2024. While browsing the Internet, he happened to come across a netizen mentioning the nickname “Nano Banana.” This name coincidentally matched the name of his puppy, “Nano,” who particularly loved a banana-shaped toy. Inspired by this, Respondent registered the domain name.
Riiiight. It didn’t help that he created a site on the domain for an AI image editing tool, which is what Google is using the term for.
Source: https://domainnamewire.com/
