events I AM LAMBO

[lambo.com]

Hello frens,

I AM LAMBO of LAMBO.com and I will defend, defeat and humiliate those endeavouring to steal any of my domain name brands - including my moniker.

We have stood by in meek positioning watching poor decisions, one after another, rendered typically by "SOLE PANELISTS" - albeit with exceptions and inconsistency.

Digital assets stripped from legal holders and registrants who immediately (apparently), default to defensive posturing against Reverse Domain Name Hijackers (RDNH).

The injustice propagated against domain investors, speculators and BUILDERS - will not continue as it has.

In my case, a car company called "Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A." is attempting THEFT of my asset, nomenclature and taxonomy they possess ZERO rights to.

https://www.udrpsearch.com/wipo/d2022-1570

Counter measures to humiliate such endeavours are afoot. Unlawful theft will be duly punished through legal and commensurate counter efforts including any coerced and submissive accomplices.

Humiliation is inevitable should they desire METAWAR, even as the car company, NISSAN, found out with NISSAN.com
https://web.archive.org/web/20200131113518/https://www.nissan.com/

This is enough for now, I will continue to update as necessary.

In the meanwhile, you can add me on lichess (@lamboDOTcom).

We will save our industry from the filth that seeks to dismember it's legitimacy.

Thank you for time and God Bless. May the VRIL be with you.

 

[lambo.com]

Does anyone have suggested panelists to nominate for the three-member Administrative Panel?

https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/panel/panelists.html

 

[bmugford]

Does anyone have suggested panelists to nominate for the three-member Administrative Panel?

https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/panel/panelists.html

Brown Q.C., The Hon Neil
Greens List Barrister|Owen Dixon Chambers West
Melbourne, VIC

He is one of the most consistently thorough, fair panelists I have seen.

https://domaininvesting.com/5-with-the-honorable-neil-brown-q-udrp-panelist/

Looking at UDRP decisions, Nick Gardner also appears to take his job seriously.

Gardner, Nick J.
St. Jean d'Aulps
France

Both of these panelists seem to almost always be on the common sense side when it comes to blatant overreach by entitled TM holders.

Brad

 

[lambo.com]

Brown Q.C., The Hon Neil
Greens List Barrister|Owen Dixon Chambers West
Melbourne, VIC

He is one of the most consistently thorough, fair panelists I have seen.

https://domaininvesting.com/5-with-the-honorable-neil-brown-q-udrp-panelist/

thanks, appreciate you!

My Uncle and Godfather is also a Queen's Counsel (QC)

 

[lambo.com]

redacted

 

[bmugford]

Hi, that was a plan at one point though the palpable disinterest from three separate attorneys had me wondering what is their garage .

That said, two spoke of alternate commitments and schedule conflicts.

Ever one to rise to the challenge I wouldn't be surprised if my work was outlier to one or multiple of theirs were they to have represented yours truly !

Some of the top IP attorneys -

John Berryhill (johnberryhill.com)
Zak Muscovitch (muscovitch.com)
Stevan Lieberman (aplegal.com)

Have you contacted them? It would be really helpful IMO to have an attorney attached to this.

Either way, make sure you specifically request a RDNH finding.

Brad

 

[lambo.com]

Some of the top IP attorneys -

John Berryhill (johnberryhill.com)
Zak Muscovitch (muscovitch.com)
Stevan Lieberman (aplegal.com)

Have you contacted them? It would be really helpful IMO to have an attorney attached to this.

Either way, make sure you specifically request a RDNH finding.

Brad

In a word, yes.

Response due in next day or two. I think all is in good shape, happy to share. Self represented which I was always open to.

 

[bmugford]

In a word, yes.

Response due in next day or two. I think all is in good shape, happy to share. Self represented which I was always open to.

Unless there are underlying factors that I am unaware of, this case is clearly overreach by an entitled TM holder.

The term has many other uses, and was clearly not being used in bad faith. I am not even sure how they can establish (1) prong of the UDRP dispute nevermind all (3) which are needed to win.

1.) Confusingly Similar.
2.) No legitimate reason to own it.
3.) Used in bad faith.

I think having a (3) member panel is more important than a lawyer personally. It really helps mitigate the awful decisions taking it out of the hands of only (1) panelist.

Brad

 

[bmugford]

In a word, yes.

Response due in next day or two. I think all is in good shape, happy to share. Self represented which I was always open to.

Do you have a copy of their dispute?

I would love to see how they tried to establish prong 2 (no legitimate reason to own it) and prong 3 (bad faith).

Even if prong 1 is a granted, which is usually a pretty low bar, the other (2) prongs require far more than a "We are entitled to it" legally baseless argument.

Brad

 

[lambo.com]

Do you have a copy of their dispute?

I would love to see how they tried to establish prong 2 (no legitimate reason to own it) and prong 3 (bad faith).

Even if prong 1 is a granted, which is usually a pretty low bar, the other (2) prongs require far more than a "We are entitled to it" legally baseless argument.

Brad

Will DM if ok

 

[bmugford]

Will DM if ok

Sure. That works.

You can PM your response if you want also.

I would certainly bring up the Nissan.com debacle somewhere in the response, if you have not already. Just because a car company is "entitled" does not mean they have any valid legal claims.

The bottom line is an overwhelming sense of entitlement does not make a valid legal claim.

Brad

 

[bmugford]

I told this to @lambo.com in DM after reading their dispute.

Just at first glance their dispute is rather generic. Their "arguments" for bad faith are extremely specious like asking price, passively holding, not using, etc. There is not much, if anything, specific when it comes to prong 2 or prong 3.

None of that stuff is bad faith in itself.

The dispute is as sense of entitlement based as I predicted it would be.

Brad

 

[bmugford]

Interesting wording on a recent UDRP ruling that furthers registrant rights -

Legitimate Interest for domain name investors in the unanimous 3-member panel decision on camco.com (https://www.adrforum.com/domaindecisions/1992264.htm)

"Respondent presents extensive evidence showing that many third parties have rights and legitimate interest in domain names that incorporate the term “camco”.

The Panel finds that Respondent also a legitimate right and interest in using the term “camco” for other classes, or for the same classes but in different jurisdictions, or to sell it to others who may have such rights."

"Respondent further argues that it has rights and legitimate interests in the <camco.com> domain name by nature of its business buying and selling generic domain names...the Panel finds that Respondent has shown that prior to the dispute and the registrations of the CAMCO marks Respondent used the <camco.com> domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services"

 

[AEProgram]

Interesting wording on a recent UDRP ruling that furthers registrant rights -

Legitimate Interest for domain name investors in the unanimous 3-member panel decision on camco.com (https://www.adrforum.com/domaindecisions/1992264.htm)

"Respondent presents extensive evidence showing that many third parties have rights and legitimate interest in domain names that incorporate the term “camco”.

The Panel finds that Respondent also a legitimate right and interest in using the term “camco” for other classes, or for the same classes but in different jurisdictions, or to sell it to others who may have such rights."

"Respondent further argues that it has rights and legitimate interests in the <camco.com> domain name by nature of its business buying and selling generic domain names...the Panel finds that Respondent has shown that prior to the dispute and the registrations of the CAMCO marks Respondent used the <camco.com> domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services"

nothing but the truth! awesome find

 

[Bob Hawkes]

Thanks for drawing our attention to this decision @bmugford. It seems the clearest UDRP statement I have seen that selling domain names is a legitimate interest as long as there are multiple potential purchasers with rights to use that name. It seems to me this is true in the vast majority of UDRP claims.

Respondent presents extensive evidence showing that many third parties have rights and legitimate interest in domain names that incorporate the term “camco”.

The Panel finds that Respondent also a legitimate right and interest in using the term “camco” for other classes, or for the same classes but in different jurisdictions, or to sell it to others who may have such rights."

I really hope this ends well for you @lambo.com. Look forward to you sharing the final decision after victory.

Bob

 

[DomainNature]

Let's imagine that Nissan and Lamborghini is not available at all as car companies and no one knows of such.
How much would cost this domains?
I consider to appraise domains based on popularity of the interested party is wrong!
I say this based on previous replies, not protecting this companies.

 

[bmugford]

Let's imagine that Nissan and Lamborghini is not available at all as car companies and no one knows of such.
How much would cost this domains?
I consider to appraise domains based on popularity of the interested party is wrong!
I say this based on previous replies, not protecting this companies.

One of my tests is - "Would this domain be registered if the famous brand did not exist?"

Would Nissan.com exist? Yeah, it is the owners surname and there are many other uses.
Would Lambo.com exist? Yeah, it is a surname with many other potential uses.

If the answer is YES to that question, the burden to show bad faith gets much higher.

Brad

 

[lambo.com]

> paid $2000 for 3 member Panel
> sent Response to Complainant and WIPO on May 29 at same time
> receive email 1 hr ago
> says they are moving ahead with Panel Appointment because they haven't received anything from me in time (by May 30)
> I resend immediately again via email which contains timestamps
> I make phone call to the case manager
> told they are busy giving webinar
> waiting..

 

[lambo.com]

Timestamp full

 

[lambo.com]

 

[lambo.com]

I just receive email confirmation of Response acknowledgment seemingly.

Nonetheless, one could do without the runaround and "scare" after doing everything by the book. Switching case managers and having one email address for all not ideal.

I'll try and go back to resting now even as I was thrown off

Update: Received return phone call, all is in order with apology.

 

[trelgor]

How do you justify your price if not related to the well known sport car brand?
How would you defend not just being a domain squatter if you've done nothing with the domain?

The logic of using price as evidence of bad faith is flawed. If the current owner has legitimate rights and/or there is no bad faith targeting, a buyer would have to pay what the price is or leave it. If the buyer is financially resourceful, the price can become high.

There is no use it or lose it with domains, thankfully. Squatting does not equal reselling domains.

 

[trelgor]

Absent substantiated claims of targeting as per UDRP - there is nothing wrong with setting the price based on who is interested. One apparent and justifying factor in my opinion is that they likely had several chances to acquire it themselves, on the open market, same as everyone else, but chose not to. So called "laches" rarely apply in UDRP context though.

If it was a company with stakeholder model that held it, it would be against the interest of the stakeholders not to get the best price, and if a board did not pursue best price, bye bye board.

 

[bmugford]

The logic of using price as evidence of bad faith is flawed. If the current owner has legitimate rights and/or there is no bad faith targeting, a buyer would have to pay what the price is or leave it. If the buyer is financially resourceful, the price can become high.

There is no use it or lose it with domains, thankfully. Squatting does not equal reselling domains.

Yes, if you have the right to own a domain you can price it however you want.

I read the complaint. It is really grasping at straws.
They don't really point out any specific incidents of bad faith.

In summary it boils down to -

1.) We are Lamborghini.

2.) Sure there is no direct evidence of bad faith, but the asking price is high, selling domains is bad, etc.

The arguments are just so generic because there is nothing specific to actually point to when it comes to bad faith.

3.) Give us the domain because we want it!!!!

 

[lambo.com]

The all but official Domain Name Hijackers thought they'd try and have the last word by sending in a "Supplemental Filing" after my response.

Here is the reply from WIPO which appears to be fence sitting.

 

[bmugford]

The all but official Domain Name Hijackers thought they'd try and have the last word by sending in a "Supplemental Filing" after my response.

Here is the reply from WIPO which appears to be fence sitting.


Show attachment 217724

UDRP is not a give and take process. They file the case, and you respond.
Unless something has materially changed, a supplemental filing should not be allowed.

If it is, you should have an opportunity to respond. You don't get 2 bites from the same apple.

Brad