yes Lambo is different than say Tesla, Apple, or Zoom. if people never used the word Lambo as a shortener to refer to the cars , the company probably wouldn't be interested in it. yes they have a trademark, but if you read the dissenting panelist he points out that the company doesn't use the word 'Lambo' for anything, not in their marketing materials, website... he even points out that the company would never use the word Lambo for anything official as it would be almost derogatory to them as opposed to using the full Lamborghini.
So here you have a company with a product that many people refer to with an abbreviation, but the company doesn't use that abbreviation, yet the company has a trademark on it. The company has trademarked a term they don't even use for anything themselves - that is a big red overreach flag to me.
If someone is using the same abbreviation for something unrelated to the car company, and there is no bad faith, how can the company claim it?
Then if someone is a rightful owner of a domain, they can ask whatever price they want for it.
If you stick to the facts about what the Complainant is supposed to prove, I think they fall short. it is easy to say yes most people know a Lambo is a Lamborghini therefore the car company should own that term, but looking at the facts it is not so clear to me.
I hope this case goes through the whole court process and a decision is made, at the very least just to read all the legal arguments made from both sides.
A lot of the case has already been made by the dissenting panelist, a good place for the domain owner and their lawyer to start from. This is kind of like losing in a lower court and they going to the Supreme Court now for another hearing. The fact that one of the three panelists dissented so strongly helps the domain owner.
