Shanghai Xiyu Jizhi Technology Co., Ltd., the First Complainant, was established in 2021 and is a general artificial intelligence technology company based in Shanghai. Nanonoble PTE. LTD., the Second Complainant, was established in 2024 and is based in Singapore. The Second Complainant is mainly responsible for the operations of the Hailuo AI and MiniMax brands in countries outside of China. <\/p>\n
Hailuo AI is an innovative product developed by the First Complainant based on artificial intelligence technology and officially launched in China in April 2024. The product is based on the First Complainant's self-developed trillion-parameter MoE large language model abab-6.5 and combines deep learning, generative adversarial networks (GANs) and multimodal AI technologies. It has multimodal interaction capabilities and can provide a variety of functions, including text analysis, text writing and recognition, and AI music and video creation. <\/p>\n
The disputed domain name <hailuoai.net> was registered on 15 September 2024. The disputed domain name resolves to an active online website branded with the name Hailuo AI, which offers access to the First Complainant’s video generation tool. At the very bottom of homepage, the website includes the following disclaimer: “HAILUOAI.NET is not affiliated with or endorsed by MiniMax. HAILUOAI.NET is an independent website that provides an interface to access Hailuo AI's video generation capabilities”.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name <hailuoaifree.com> was registered on 3 December 2024. The disputed domain name resolves to an active online website branded with the name Hailuo AI Free, which offers access to the First Complainant’s text to video generator. This website, too, contains a disclaimer at the bottom of the home page, which states: “HailuoAIFree.com is not affiliated with MiniMax. HailuoAIFree.com is an independent website that converts text and images into videos using Hailuo AI's technology”.<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "
The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain names.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "
The Complainants contend that all three elements of the UDRP have been fulfilled and they therefore request the transfer of the disputed domain names to the First Complainant.<\/p>\n
No administratively compliant response has been filed.<\/p>", "rights": "
The Second Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Second Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).<\/p>", "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "
The Second Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).<\/p>", "bad_faith": "
The Second Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).<\/p>", "procedural_factors": "
The Complainants request that their complaints against the Respondent be consolidated into one proceeding. Paragraph 10(e) of the UDRP Rules grants the Panel the power to consolidate multiple domain name disputes. At the same time, paragraph 3(c) of the UDRP Rules provides that a complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder. UDRP panels have looked to a variety of factors in determining whether multiple domain names are, in fact, of common ownership (see WIPO Overview 3.0 at section 4.11.2). Such factors include similarities in the Whois information and similar website resolution; they may lead to the conclusion that domain names with different registrant names are, nevertheless, owned by a single entity. While in the present case the registrant names for the disputed domain names differ slightly, the registrants for the disputed domain names use the same e-mail address and the disputed domain names resolve to similar active websites. The Panel therefore finds that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the disputed domain names were in fact registered by the same entity. The Panel finds that it would therefore be equitable and procedurally efficient to permit the consolidation of the disputed domain names into this single proceeding.<\/p>\n
By procedural order dated 31 March 2025, made pursuant to paragraph 11(b) of the UDRP Rules, amongst other directions, the Panel invited the Complainants to submit any evidence on which they sought to rely in support of their Amended Complaint, including any information included in the Annexes to the Amended Complaint, in the English language (this being the language of the proceeding), and to provide English translations where the original language of a document was not English. This was to include documents or information accessed via links to third-party sites. No response was received from any party to the directions in the procedural order. <\/p>\n
The Panel is satisfied that all other procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.<\/p>", "decision": "Partially Accepted\/Partially Rejected", "panelists": [ "Gregor Kleinknecht LLM MCIArb" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2025-04-18 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "
The Second Complainant owns the United Kingdom national trade mark HAILUO, registration number UK00004116722, first registered on 25 January 2025 in international classes 9, 35, 38, 41, 42, 45. The aforementioned trade mark registration of the Second Complainant postdates the registration of the disputed domain names. However, the fact that the disputed domain names were registered before the Second Complainant acquired registered trade mark rights in the name HAILUO does not in itself preclude the Second Complainant’s standing to file a UDRP case since the right was in existence at the time when the complaint was filed. The Complainants further assert that they have both acquired common law rights in the name HAILUO AI. For the reasons given below, there is insufficient evidence for the Panel to make a finding that the First Complainant has acquired any common law rights and for that reason the First Complainant lacks standing in this proceeding. However, the Panel accepts that the Second Complainant has acquired such common law rights in the name HAILUO AI which predate the registration of the disputed domain names.<\/p>\n
The Complainants have not referred to any domain names used by them which consist of and incorporate the names HAILUO or HAILUO AI, and which are connected to the Complainants’ official websites through which they inform Internet users and customers about their products and services.<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "hailuoai.net": "TRANSFERRED", "hailuoaifree.com": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }