The Complaint was filed on behalf of Shanghai Xiyu Jizhi Technology Co., Ltd. and Nanonoble PTE. LTD. In response to a procedural order, Complainants state that each of these entities is “a 100% indirectly owned subsidiary of MiniMax Group Inc.”; that “both Complainants are under the ultimate common control of the same parent entity, MiniMax Group Inc., thereby constituting a single commercial entity for the purpose of this proceeding”; and that “[c]onsequently, their consolidation is procedurally appropriate and necessary to reflect the commercial reality of the MINIMAX brand ownership.”<\/p>\n
While Shanghai Xiyu Jizhi Technology Co., Ltd. is the owner of the MINIMAX Trademark, it is unclear why the Complaint includes Nanonoble PTE. LTD as a party and, further, why the Complaint does not include MiniMax Group Inc. as a party. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 1.4: “A trademark owner’s affiliate such as a subsidiary of a parent or of a holding company, or an exclusive trademark licensee, is considered to have rights in a trademark under the UDRP for purposes of standing to file a complaint. The same holds true for a parent company filing a UDRP case on the basis of rights held in the name of one of the companies or brands under its corporate umbrella.” Accordingly, the term “Complainant” as used herein shall refer to Shanghai Xiyu Jizhi Technology Co., Ltd.<\/p>\n
Complainant states that it was founded in December 2021 and that it “launched the MINIMAX brand, which is widely used in connection with its artificial intelligence services and products and is commonly referred to in the market as MiniMax.” Complainant further states that “the MiniMax-M2 was officially released on October 27, 2025, as a native multimodal foundation model.” Complainant further states that “MiniMax” – presumably, MiniMax Group Inc. – “completed a round of financing of more than US$250 million in June 2023, with a value of more than US$1.2 billion” and that “[i]n 2024, Alibaba led a new round of financing for MiniMax, with an investment of up to US$600 million, making the company's valuation exceed US$2.5 billion.”<\/p>\n
The Disputed Domain Name was created on October 28, 2025, and, according to the Complaint, “the content of the website associated with the Disputed Domain Name corresponds precisely to the Complainant's trading area and its M2 series technology.” An annex of a screenshot of the website refers to MiniMax M2” as “An Efficient Model for the Agentic Era.”<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "
The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings that are pending or decided and that relate to the Disputed Domain Name.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "
Complainant contends, in relevant part, as follows:<\/p>\n
Paragraph 4(a)(i): Complainant states that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the MINIMAX Trademark because “[t]he MINIMAX trademark is the dominant and most distinctive element within the Disputed Domain Name”; “the addition of the suffix ‘m2’ is far from coincidental and serves as a direct reference to the Complainant’s flagship technology”; and “the content of the website associated with the Disputed Domain Name corresponds precisely to the Complainant's trading area and its M2 series technology.”<\/p>\n
Paragraph 4(a)(ii): Complainant states that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name because, inter alia<\/em>, “[t]he Respondent is not a distributor, partner, or licensee of the Complainant”; “[t]he Complainant has never directly or indirectly authorized the Respondent to use the MINIMAX trademark, the MiniMax brand, or any corresponding domain names in any form”; and “[t]he Complainant also conducted searches in various national and regional trademark databases under the Respondent's name and found no evidence that the Respondent holds any trademark rights in MINIMAX or MiniMax.”<\/p>\n Paragraph 4(a)(iii): Complainant states that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith because, inter alia<\/em>, “[b]efore the disputed domain name was registered, MINIMAX had been widely reported in multiple media outlets worldwide, particularly following the high-profile launch of the MiniMax-M2 model on October 27, 2025”; “[t]he fact that the disputed domain name incorporates both the MINIMAX trademark and the specific ‘M2’ model identifier precludes any possibility that the Respondent’s registration was accidental”; “the Respondent created a website featuring content substantially similar to the Complainant’s official website,” which “demonstrates that the registration was a calculated move to capitalize on the specific commercial momentum of the Complainant's latest technology”; and “the website content associated with the disputed domain… features the Complainant’s stylized MiniMax logo, product videos, and specific imagery related to the M2 model, while also including multiple advertising pages.”<\/p>\n No administratively compliant response has been filed.<\/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 UDRP).<\/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 UDRP).<\/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 UDRP).<\/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": [
"Douglas Isenberg"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2026-04-28 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " Complainant states that it “has exclusive rights to Chinese trademarks such as MINIMAX, MiniMax and Minimax Intelligence in multiple categories, and also has exclusive rights to New Zealand, Singapore and Peru trademarks such as MINIMAX in multiple categories.” In support thereof, Complainant provides documentation showing its ownership of Madrid Reg. No. 842282A for the mark MINIMAX (registered February 5, 2004) for use in connection with, inter alia, “telecommunications”; New Zealand Reg. No. 1270412 for MINIMAX (registered August 2, 2024) for use in connection with, inter alia, “computer chatbot software for simulating conversations”; and Singapore Reg. No. 40202417422S for MINIMAX (registered March 18, 2025) for use in connection with, inter alia, “chaperoning.” These registrations are referred to herein as the “MINIMAX Trademark.”<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"minimaxm2.com": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}