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.