Lambo from namepoos loses Lambo.com in a UDRP (2.Viewing)

Isn't Lambo just a slang word for the car?

I would have gotten a lawyer to defend it, just to have the best chance to keep a name like that.

shame on the 2 panelists

just read it, Neil Anthony Brown gave a good dissent as to why the complaint should have been rejected. which is the kind of argument a good domain lawyer could have come up with.

I haven’t read the thread since it’s 12 pages but as unfortunate as it is it’s pretty clear to anyone that “lambo” is shortened form of Lamborghini. Ask 10 people more than likely 10 out of 10 will tell you that.

When you have a domain like that it’s going to take quite a bit of evidence to prove to panelists that it’s not the case. Now I didn’t read the UDRP…but if the guys last name was “lambo” I can imagine it would have been much easier to defend and win the case.

So as far as I’m concerned. I am not really surprised…

part of the dissent was that even though the company has a tm on 'Lambo', they don't actually use the word for anything to do with selling the cars! so it is a trademark for a term they don't even use. they always use the full Lamborghini. in fact the point was made that the company would probably think using the term 'Lambo' in any of their marketing materials would be distasteful as opposed to the full name. so part of this is, should companies be allowed to protect terms with a trademark, when they don't even use that term for anything?

the domain owner wasn't using the domain for anything to do with the car, selling ads, etc. the domain owner's username in a domain forum was 'lambo'. the domain owner had the domain for sale, but never approached the company to sell it to them. hard to argue bad faith.

Yes, almost anyone who hears the term 'lambo' thinks of the car, but there are other uses on the name by other companies, for example check: Lambo Group Berhad What if you named your cat Lambo and used the domain for a webpage about your cat?

at first glance it might seem like an easy decision, but going strictly by the UDRP rules it isn't so clear that there was any wrongdoing, and the 2 panelists who voted for had some leaps of faith and broad assumptions in their reasoning imo. far as I can tell it was an overreach by the company.

A good domain lawyer could have made a lot of the arguments made by the dissenting panelist, and maybe even more because a domain lawyer with some history can likely pull up some old UDRP's and find some related instances to your own case that are supporting.

This is one of those UDRP's that really makes you think about the rules, and isn't so clear cut from a first look.

I can’t say that I agree to be honest. You can call your cat Microsoft doesn’t mean you have any actual rights. Lambo is such a well known term. It would be very difficult to defend. No matter what lawyer you have there’s still a good chance you could lose the domain. Unfortunately I think having a username on a forum was obviously not enough. If it was a well known nickname of yours I think at that point you would need tons of evidence.

Not sure what evidence was provided but if it was solely the username that’s pretty pathetic in my opinion.

Babycakes would have a better chance.

This domain owner made a bunch of bad decisions that did not help his ownership defence. If handled differently, he might have prevailed.

theinvestor said:

I can’t say that I agree to be honest. You can call your cat Microsoft doesn’t mean you have any actual rights. Lambo is such a well known term. It would be very difficult to defend. No matter what lawyer you have there’s still a good chance you could lose the domain. Unfortunately I think having a username on a forum was obviously not enough. If it was a well known nickname of yours I think at that point you would need tons of evidence.

Not sure what evidence was provided but if it was solely the username that’s pretty pathetic in my opinion.

Click to expand...

The username angle is pretty light, but it seems to be true and shouldn't even be necessary to keep the domain. I'd say there's a case the owner should have won without even having to make a defense.

The important parts to me are:

- the owner wasn't using the name in bad faith, trying to pretend to be the Lamborghini company or displaying related ads, or trying to sell the name to the company.

- the company doesn't use the word Lambo in anything they do, as pointed out by the one panelist, yet has it trademarked. that is kind of alarming for a company to trademark something that it doesn't use. part of owning a trademark means you need to be showing evidence of its use. in a quick Google search I found another company with Lambo in the name. it's a pretty short pronounceable term that is probably used for a lot of things in the world, or could be an acronym. Unlike say 'Microsoft' as you gave for an example.

- I can understand why the company wants it, and that some people use the term for their car, and it's a big term for crypto and investors to signify big profits, but I don't that's enough for the company to have complete ownership of the term to the point they can take a domain away.

at any rate it's a pretty unique case, hard to think of an example that matches it. basically an abbreviation of a product name that people use instead of the full product name.

I wonder if they'll go after Lamborg.com next?

MaiTaiMan said:

This domain owner made a bunch of bad decisions that did not help his ownership defence. If handled differently, he might have prevailed.

Click to expand...

I read through a lot of the dissenting panelists argument, but not the entire case. I think in a case like this if you really want to keep the domain and think you have a chance, you spend the cash for an experience lawyer.

Dissenting Opinion: This Panelist would dismiss the Complaint for the following reasons. The LAMBO mark is the Complainant’s orphan child, not in practical use. That is, the Complainant does not use LAMBO to identify its motor vehicles and is clearly not interested in using it for that purpose. Moreover, the Complaint does not reveal that the Complainant once had a USPTO trademark for LAMBO in the United States but it abandoned that trademark on August 11, 2017, five months before the Respondent acquired the disputed Domain Name. The Domain Name is the property of the Respondent and his ownership should be respected. He is in his right to sell it, at the price he is asking and at the price he thinks he can obtain. It would be a very bold decision to declare in effect that a person who bought a domain name and not engaged in any conduct that could be regarded as a breach of the UDRP, should be deprived of its own property simply for retaining a Domain Name.

Click to expand...

Read it here: Lambo.com Transferred to Lamborghini, with Strong Dissenting Opinion - UDRP Digest Vol 2.32 - InternetCommerce.org

Too bad this is the dissenting opinion and not the decision itself. Great arguments are made, which can still be used in future cases, but I'm not sure one would want to directly cite this case given that he ultimately lost the domain. It is however possible to cite dissenting opinions but it's not necessarily ideal.

I AM LAMBO - NO MORE

The guy sells stolen domains and is totally unapologetic, he deserves everything he gets.
Search results for query: lambo

Spitfire said:

The guy sells stolen domains and is totally unapologetic, he deserves everything he gets.
Search results for query: lambo

Click to expand...

Which stolen domains did he sell? I looked when you first posted this but couldn't find anything.

And the battle ain't over yet it seems... just like he promised.

I’m surprised that the domain is still listed for sale. Especially since the decision was made well over 2 weeks ago to transfer it to Lamborghini. Since it’s still ongoing, shouldn’t lambo.com have no NS?

If you do visit lambo.com, just a heads up to make sure you are wearing a pair of sunglasses. That green background could hurt your eyes.

good luck to him! He’s going to need it.

theinvestor said:

good luck to him! He’s going to need it.

Click to expand...

Well since the decision has already been made to transfer lambo.com, I believe this doesn’t bide well in his favour. I’m no lawyer but I think he has an uphill battle. I also can’t imagine the legal fees he will have.

Nafti said:

Especially since the decision was made well over 2 weeks ago to transfer it to Lamborghini.

Click to expand...

You would think it transferred already but check out the bold parts below. Sure sounds like the domain hasn't been transferred yet.

"The lawsuit seeks the following relief:"

(a) Declaring that Plaintiff’s acquisition and use of the domain name Lambo.com is not unlawful under the ACPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d);

Click to expand...

(b) Declaring that Plaintiff’s acquisition and use of the domain name Lambo.com does
not constitute a registration with the bad faith intent to profit from any mark alleged
to be owned by Defendant under the ACPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d);

Click to expand...

(c) Declaring that Plaintiff is not required to transfer the domain name Lambo.com to
Defendant;

Click to expand...

(d) Declaring that the Registrar NameSilo LLC shall not transfer the registration for the
domain name Lambo.com to Defendant;

Click to expand...

(e) For such other and further relief as the Court shall deem appropriate.

Click to expand...

Domain gang's link is in the tweet but here it is again: Lambo.com: Following UDRP loss, Respondent files lawsuit against Lamborghini - DomainGang

And here's a pdf link to the actual court filing: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.azd.1307873/gov.uscourts.azd.1307873.1.0.pdf

Nafti said:

Well since the decision has already been made to transfer lambo.com, I believe this doesn’t bide well in his favour. I’m no lawyer but I think he has an uphill battle. I also can’t imagine the legal fees he will have.

Click to expand...

Big companies are capable of dragging things out and making things very costly. He will cave. Also I’m sorry but purchasing a domain and using the argument that you use it as a nickname on a forum is not a great argument to me. Especially since he didn’t have the “nickname” prior to domain ownership. He wasn’t Lambo.com on NP prior to owning the domain.

Sad to see someone not able to part with a domain. Sometimes we make a lapse in judgment and can’t seem to back down from it. A shame…because he could have kept the domain under different circumstances.