The Complainant states that it founded and launched the MINIMAX brand in December 2021. The brand is widely used in connection with its artificial intelligence services and products and is commonly referred to in the market as MiniMax. Evolving from an AI startup into a comprehensive global AI platform company, the Complainant is committed to promoting the application and popularization of AI technology through advanced multimodal large models and an expansive open-source and global strategy. Complainant has a range of products, technologies and core capabilities. <\/p>\n
MiniMax also provides AI large model bases for domestic mobile phone manufacturers including OPPO, Xiaomi, Honor and other brands, but the revenue scale of this part is relatively small, about tens of millions of RMB in 2023. According to media reports, MiniMax's revenue is expected to exceed US$70 million in 2024, with the main source of revenue coming from MiniMax's Talkie application. In 2024, MiniMax won two important awards: selected into the Forbes China Top 50 Most Innovative Companies list and selected into the Fortune 50 AI Innovators list. Public interest in the Complainant’s brand has also grown rapidly. According to Google Trends, global search interest in the terms “MiniMax” and “MiniMax AI” has increased significantly since September 2024, demonstrating the rising recognition of the Complainant’s brand.<\/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 name.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "
PARTIES CONTENTIONS<\/p>\n
COMPLAINANT<\/p>\n
The Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it. It states in particular that Respondent registered the disputed domain name <minimaxaivideo.com> on November 3, 2024, and that it resolves to a page offering services corresponding to Complainant's that consumers will assume is an official website sponsored by Complainant. The Complainant maintains that the fact that the Respondent uses the domain to feature AI-video-related material confirms that the domain was selected not for its generic meaning, but to capitalize on the direct association with the Complainant’s commercial activities.<\/span><\/p>\n Complainant has no business relationship with Respondent; it has not licensed the right or authorized Respondent to register and use its trademark. It is evident from Respondent ‘s use of the disputed domain name that the purpose for its registration is to target Complainant and consumers seeking to reach Complainant’s genuine website.<\/p>\n Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name <minimaxaivideo.com> incorporates the Complainant’s MINIMAX trademark in its entirety. The Complainant submits that the domain name is confusingly similar to its prior rights based on the following grounds: <\/p>\n 1) Dominant Feature and Recognition<\/p>\n The MINIMAX trademark is the dominant and most distinctive element within the Disputed Domain Name. While the term \"Minimax\" may historically refer to a decision rule in game theory or mathematics (as noted in general references like Wikipedia), the Complainant has established substantial secondary meaning and global notoriety for the mark within the artificial intelligence sector. Since 2024, the MiniMax brand has seen an exponential surge in global public interest, becoming a primary identifier for the Complainant’s high-tech services.<\/p>\n 2) The \"Targeting\" Logic of Composite Terms<\/p>\n The Complainant contends that while \"Minimax,\" \"AI,\" and \"Video\" may individually be considered dictionary or descriptive terms, their specific combination within the Disputed Domain Name—\"minimax\" + \"ai\" + \"video\"—creates a composite string that points exclusively to the Complainant and its core business activities. In the current technological landscape, the addition of the suffixes 'ai' and 'video' directly corresponds to the Complainant’s primary field of operation and its widely recognized expertise in AI-driven video generation. This specific combination of the MINIMAX trademark with descriptors characterizing the Complainant’s core business indicates that the Respondent was acutely aware of the Complainant’s market presence and specifically intended to target its commercial reputation.<\/p>\n 3) Website Content as Evidence of Targeted Confusion Crucially, the Complainant draws the attention of the Panel to the fact that the content of the website associated with the Disputed Domain Name corresponds precisely to the Complainant's trading area. This \"content-driven\" alignment serves as an extrinsic indicator that the Respondent utilized the domain name specifically to target the Complainant's MINIMAX trademark and business identity. <\/p>\n RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n The Respondent has not appeared formally or informally to controvert the evidence submitted by the Complainant.<\/p>",
"rights": " The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).<\/p>",
"no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": " The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).<\/p>",
"bad_faith": " The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).<\/p>",
"procedural_factors": " The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.<\/p>",
"decision": "Accepted",
"panelists": [
"Gerald Levine Ph.D, Esq."
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2026-04-20 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant is the owner of the international trademarks MINIMAX, MiniMax and Minimax Intelligence in multiple categories. It obtained the Madrid registration number 842282A dated Geneva, February 2, 2024. It additionally has trademark registrations in New Zealand, 1270413 dated March 4, 2025 and The Republic of Singapore 40202417422S dated March 18, 2025.<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"minimaxaivideo.com": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}