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.

 

[MadAboutDomains]

In parts of the US south and Midwest, people refer to any soft drink as a "coke", which is probably why they wanted to make sure to nail it down:

https://www.southernliving.com/culture/why-do-southerners-call-soda-coke

Hence, you'll sometimes hear an only-in-the-South exchange that goes like this:

"You want a coke?"
"Sure."
"What kind can I get you?"

You can actually study the science behind our beverage speak. Cartographer, Alan McConchie, began collecting data on who says what and where and used it to create a color-coded map. To this very day, you can go there and answer McConchie's burning question: "What generic word do you use to describe carbonated soft drinks?" The results are reflected on the map, with pink the designated "coke" color. The South is mighty pink.

Show attachment 220916

Yeah but what about the people that call it soda-pop?

 

[branding]

See, even though we as domainers obviously don't like the outcome of this UDRP there's knowledge to be gathered, for future reference. Good stuff.

 

[MadAboutDomains]

See, even though we as domainers obviously don't like the outcome of this UDRP there's knowledge to be gathered, for future reference. Good stuff.

Certainly. I'm happy to be corrected on especially when there's stuff to be learned. Conversations, especially with those as knowledgeable as @jberryhill are invaluable.

 

[jberryhill]

This is the part where we need someone to chime in with:

"This is the problem with web2 domains! With web3 domains, no one can take them away and there's no telling what you might find at FamousMark.squat! That's why ordinary users of the internet are just going hog wild for all the content, functionality and reliable commerce at web3, because it is not under the thumb of (insert global cabal of evil conspirators)."

 

[inforg]

This is the part where we need someone to chime in with:

"This is the problem with web2 domains! With web3 domains, no one can take them away and there's no telling what you might find at FamousMark.squat! That's why ordinary users of the internet are just going hog wild for all the content, functionality and reliable commerce at web3, because it is not under the thumb of (insert global cabal of evil conspirators)."

Nice try! We all know you are an Illuminati/Bilderberger/Rockefeller/NWO plant just trying to triangulate our bunker locations. Not falling for it

 

[The Durfer]

Well, of course it does.

In any trademark dispute, reputation matters.

When the Google results look like this:

Show attachment 220887

Show attachment 220888


Then the fact that there are some minor other uses doesn't change the basic point that the UDRP is driving at:

"Why did this person register this domain name?"

A trademark doesn't have to be unique for a trademark owner to win a domain dispute, but these cases ultimately come down to the panel's assessment of the credibility of the reason why the respondent claims to have registered the domain name.

Take a trademark like "Monster". It's well known as an energy drink, and electronic cable manufacturer, and an employment service. To show that someone who has registered "Monster" in a domain name is cybersquatting, then the complaint is going to have to provide some factual basis to conclude the respondent was targeting them.

But, when you have an association of the term with the trademark owner which is this strong, then a lot is going to depend on the credibility of the respondent's explanation of why they registered the domain name, and whatever evidence backs that up. Absolutely, the UDRP places the burden of proof on the complainant, but as a practical matter - and really as a point of common sense - if your defense is going to be "it's my nickname" then you are going to have to come up with solid evidence of that.

That's just a basic truth. I've defended a lot of "commonly known as cases" and "because I say so" doesn't work out very well.

You can point to other companies, surnames, etc., but at the end of the day, these cases come down to what the panel believes the most likely answer is to the question "why did this person register this domain name?" If the response is sketchy on details like when the name was registered, and relies on a changed username on a web forum after the name was acquired, then some panelists - and in this instance two out of three - are going to be skeptical of the respondent's motivation.

The "MONSTER" example makes a good contrast. Here are the top organic Google results:


Show attachment 220890

Notice that the top organic results are the employment service, the energy drink, and the cable manufacturer, followed by a movie.

Of course, on top of that "monster" is an ordinary generic dictionary word.

So, for any one of the "Monster" trademark owners to make out a case of cybersquatting, they have a harder job than something like "Lambo". You can post all the business directories you want, but the bottom line is that if you walk down the street and ask people:

1. What, if anything, does the term "Lambo" mean to you?

and

2. What, if anything, does the term "Monster" mean to you?

You are going to get two very different and distinguishable types of answers. The difference in Google results between a term like "Lambo" and a term like "Monster" should be telling you something important about the difference between these two terms.

If the difference is not clear to you, then, yes, a lot of UDRP results are going to seem hard to distinguish.

And, once again with feeling, the dissent reflects the fact that the complainant did not do a very good job in presenting their case either. That sort of thing can make a big difference in cases that can go either way, depending on the details.

ahh, now to the rite of the dot, are these cases even harder if the tld is given to the public to use anyway? ty

 

[Mister Funsky]

Hence, you'll sometimes hear an only-in-the-South exchange that goes like this:

"You want a coke?"
"Sure."
"What kind can I get you?"

Being a child of the South, I can attest this is true. Only after I met and fell in love with a Yankee (she was from Cleveland area) did I hear the term 'soda'.

Indeed, whenever I asked if I could have a 'coke' as a child, it meant I wanted the sweeter creation from North Carolina called Pepsi.

Additionally, I want to thank @jberryhill for all his time and postings in this and other threads. Your efforts are truly appreciated!

 

[DomainNature]

Mister @jberryhill time is very expensive from my understanding, that is why he was paid upfront to give us insights against Lambo current owner. Anyway we do appreciate your replies here they are very informative!
And I think to ask 50M for this domain is a rip off, i have more important future car brands and i m not going to ask more than 1M for them.

Also there was something that i have observed when this thread was created, will not mention what it was but NP staff is part to it, not sure why, if you were one of the first viewers of this topic you may remember what that dubious thing was, too bad I did not take a screenshot.
P.s. i would sell that hint for 50K if lamborghini wants to pay me I will tell them.

 

[jberryhill]

Mister @jberryhill time is very expensive from my understanding, that is why he was paid upfront to give us insights against Lambo current owner.

It would be an ethical violation for me to comment on a matter like this without disclosing any interest in the matter. I have not been paid, promised to be paid, compensated or receive anything at all in return for my comments here. I have commented on many pending cases and UDRP disputes in the past.

You will also notice that prior to the decision, my view of this case is that the domain name owner would probably win. However, the decision showed that one of my assumptions was incorrect, and also shows that I had no knowledge of any of the documents that had been filed in the case. So your comment about insights "against the Lambo current owner" is not even correct relative to my view of this matter prior to the decision having been issued.

If you believe otherwise, please feel free to file an ethical complaint with the Pennsylvania Disciplinary Board

https://www.padisciplinaryboard.org/for-the-public/file-complaint

But, let's be clear. You are saying that someone is paying me to post on Namepros?

Who do you suppose is paying me, and what is it they expect to accomplish by paying me to post stuff on Namepros?

Also there was something that i have observed when this thread was created, will not mention what it was but NP staff is part to it, not sure why, if you were one of the first viewers of this topic you may remember what that dubious thing was, too bad I did not take a screenshot.

The English is a little hard to decipher there. What is it you are trying to say?

I probably first noticed this thread when the case was listed on the WIPO pending UDRP case docket. I regularly review the list of upcoming cases:

https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/cases.html

One of the reasons I do that is I represent a lot of domain name registrants in UDRP disputes, and it is sometimes the first indication that one of my client's names has been named in a dispute. Once in a while I will also alert people to a pending dispute in situations where it looks like they have an obvious defense.

I don't know when the domain name was forwarded to this thread, but the thread seems to have started around the time the domain registrant would have been notified of the dispute:

https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/pdf/2022/d2022-1570.pdf

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 29, 2022.
On April 29, 2022, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in
connection with the disputed domain name. On May 2, 2022, the Registrar transmitted by email to the
Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name
which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an
email communication to the Complainant on May 3, 2022, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Center received an email communication from the Respondent on May 6, 2022. The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on May 8, 2022.

The highlighted part is where registrants often first become aware of a dispute - when WIPO sends out the invitation to amend. The decision also notes that the respondent sent an email on May 6, which would be consistent with the start of this thread (and taking into account different time zones).

Other people also noticed that the domain name had been directed to this thread:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1532243196423680001

So, there may have been traffic to this thread in particular, since this thread was (a) a forward of lambo.com which probably gets some decent traffic, and (b) was linked on Twitter in relation to the dispute as well.

But, again, what is it you are trying to say? Spit it out.

 

[Keith]

I think the registrant should have lost after a full evaluation.

 

[xcloud123]

owner cannot point out that lambo is common use in life，which is used as a excuse by the Car company

 

[anunt]

domainers sticking up for domainers is totally fine and understandable but come on people….be honest with yourselves.

You domainers really thought the registrant had a chance here when his actual name is Richard Blair and not John Lambeth.

And why didn’t he say i am Richard and not John Lambeth while discussing on here.
Richards only case here was his nickname and he failed.

If you ask 100 random people on the street, what do they expect to see on Lambo.com
Almost all of them will say Lamborghini.
Of course, this alone does not prove anything.

Where is the owner of lambo.com now
Tell him to stick his chest out and speak up like he did on his first post.

This is chess not checkers…

What’s your next move Mr. Richard?

 

[trelgor]

Top class pro-bono in action from @jberryhill. Most lawyers with his level of specialized knowledge would only use namepros to find something discriminating. Thank you for bursting bubbles and educating the echo-chamber. I'm saddened that the Lambo-decision was self-represented, and even more saddened by the multitude that choose to default completely. I can't say it was wrong, but I do think Lambo really had potential to be important in terms of registrant rights.

 

[Alex270]

Reading this topic, I think @lambo.com biggest mistake was that he didn't hire a lawyer to help him.

 

[trelgor]

On the line of defense suggested by @jberryhill, similar registered domains, and the question as to why no "similar domains" may be registered by the same investor. I would register or buy the proverbial Mambo, Wambo, Rambo, Tambo, Pambo, Sambo, Fambo, Gambo, Hambo, Jambo, Kambo, Zambo, Cambo, Vambo, Bambo, Nambo and Mambo. But the likelihood that I would come across that opportunity is low, and the likelihood that I would have more than one is even lower. I may also not be able to afford it. That does not exclude that my profile and intent is to acquire them and other names with potential formal similarity and wide appeal for resale.

 

[jberryhill]

 

[OwnedWords]

I'm far too classy to tag users or quote all the all the replies to my comments, including the one where I noted the price was unjustifiable when decoupled from the value of the sport car company. So I will just leave this here....
I told you so

 

[Brian L.]

I hate that this is even an issue. You’re obviously in the right.

 

[jberryhill]

Well, the interesting news is that Mr. Blair obtained some legal advice, and has wisely decided to stop posting about his case.

Suit filed in the US District Court of Arizona:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.azd.1307873/gov.uscourts.azd.1307873.1.0.pdf

 

[Andreas B.]

There is a trademark for Lambo?!?!

When I am in italy, italians tell you how you correctly say the word 'Lamborghini'.

Saying Lambo is something no italian (no culturally educated one) accepts.

And now the dispute is that automobili lamborghini wants the domain lambo.com?!

These days you aren't being surprised by anything any more...


just like that meta case, where dozens of companies called themself meta before, without any problems,
meta () domains were registed or traded,

... and then facebook comes along, buys meta.com and says, no one is eligible to reg any more meta domains.

Did Zuck actually asked owners of the first documented meta company, if he himself is eligible to trademark something like meta... (as 5th or 6th in a row)?!


sickening.

 

[jberryhill]

There is a trademark for Lambo?!?!

Lamborghini has, in the past, recovered damages in US courts for use of the mark "Lambo". For example, in a suit in Alabama against a manufacturer of car body kits:

Automobili Lamborghini S. P.A. v. Johnson, No. 5:13-cv-1136-TMP (N.D. Ala. Aug. 29, 2014)

In this case, the court finds that the violations were willful. Plaintiff has offered evidence that it communicated with defendants to gain compliance with its trademarks, but defendants refused to cease making and selling fiberglass auto body kits prominently displaying Lamborghini marks both on the kits and in advertising. Defendants offered the body kits for slightly less than $3,000 each, according to the advertising submitted by plaintiff, but neither the court nor plaintiff has any evidence as to how many such kits were sold. It is clear that defendants offered for sale only one "type of goods," the fiberglass auto body kits. Defendants used several counterfeit marks, however, including the names Lamborghini, Lambo, Murcielago, Reventon, and Diablo, as well as the Lamborghini Raging Bull logo, on five different auto body kits offered for sell. Additionally, the auto body kits were intentionally designed to mimic the look of at least three of plaintiff's automobile styles, and most particularly the scissor door design. 15 U.S.C § 1117.

...

Recognizing the need to deter these defendants from continuing to infringe plaintiff's trademarks in the names Lamborghini, Lambo, Murcielago, Reventon, and Diablo, as well as the novel scissor door design of its automobiles, the court finds that statutory damages of $25,000 per infringement use of a counterfeit mark per type of goods sold is adequate to compensate the plaintiff and deter further infringements by defendants.

So, if the suit is served on Lamborghini, which will take some time and expense, and if Lamborghini shows up, then the stakes will increase, since Lamborghini will undoubtedly counterclaim for monetary damages for cybersquatting.

 

[timestamp]

What happens when he sells domain? Will he still be known as lambo? Will he switch to 445?

 

[Andreas B.]

Lamborghini has, in the past, recovered damages in US courts for use of the mark "Lambo". For example, in a suit in Alabama against a manufacturer of car body kits:

Automobili Lamborghini S. P.A. v. Johnson, No. 5:13-cv-1136-TMP (N.D. Ala. Aug. 29, 2014)

In this case, the court finds that the violations were willful. Plaintiff has offered evidence that it communicated with defendants to gain compliance with its trademarks, but defendants refused to cease making and selling fiberglass auto body kits prominently displaying Lamborghini marks both on the kits and in advertising. Defendants offered the body kits for slightly less than $3,000 each, according to the advertising submitted by plaintiff, but neither the court nor plaintiff has any evidence as to how many such kits were sold. It is clear that defendants offered for sale only one "type of goods," the fiberglass auto body kits. Defendants used several counterfeit marks, however, including the names Lamborghini, Lambo, Murcielago, Reventon, and Diablo, as well as the Lamborghini Raging Bull logo, on five different auto body kits offered for sell. Additionally, the auto body kits were intentionally designed to mimic the look of at least three of plaintiff's automobile styles, and most particularly the scissor door design. 15 U.S.C § 1117.

...

Recognizing the need to deter these defendants from continuing to infringe plaintiff's trademarks in the names Lamborghini, Lambo, Murcielago, Reventon, and Diablo, as well as the novel scissor door design of its automobiles, the court finds that statutory damages of $25,000 per infringement use of a counterfeit mark per type of goods sold is adequate to compensate the plaintiff and deter further infringements by defendants.

So, if the suit is served on Lamborghini, which will take some time and expense, and if Lamborghini shows up, then the stakes will increase, since Lamborghini will undoubtedly counterclaim for monetary damages for cybersquatting.

...
the "term" Lambo is nothing but an everyday acronym / abbreviation for Lamborghini,
used and 'founded' - if you will - by enthusiasts and fans in their private (spair) time.

Nothing Lamborghini should be concerend off.

Does @lambo.com (the user) put some porn pics - or worse - on that domain-site, or what?!


This is a childish discussion.

As long as lambo, the user, does not show that he intends to harm the company a. l. by using this domain,
he isn't to be blamed for anything.

 

[bmugford]

Lamborghini has, in the past, recovered damages in US courts for use of the mark "Lambo". For example, in a suit in Alabama against a manufacturer of car body kits:

Automobili Lamborghini S. P.A. v. Johnson, No. 5:13-cv-1136-TMP (N.D. Ala. Aug. 29, 2014)

In this case, the court finds that the violations were willful. Plaintiff has offered evidence that it communicated with defendants to gain compliance with its trademarks, but defendants refused to cease making and selling fiberglass auto body kits prominently displaying Lamborghini marks both on the kits and in advertising. Defendants offered the body kits for slightly less than $3,000 each, according to the advertising submitted by plaintiff, but neither the court nor plaintiff has any evidence as to how many such kits were sold. It is clear that defendants offered for sale only one "type of goods," the fiberglass auto body kits. Defendants used several counterfeit marks, however, including the names Lamborghini, Lambo, Murcielago, Reventon, and Diablo, as well as the Lamborghini Raging Bull logo, on five different auto body kits offered for sell. Additionally, the auto body kits were intentionally designed to mimic the look of at least three of plaintiff's automobile styles, and most particularly the scissor door design. 15 U.S.C § 1117.

...

Recognizing the need to deter these defendants from continuing to infringe plaintiff's trademarks in the names Lamborghini, Lambo, Murcielago, Reventon, and Diablo, as well as the novel scissor door design of its automobiles, the court finds that statutory damages of $25,000 per infringement use of a counterfeit mark per type of goods sold is adequate to compensate the plaintiff and deter further infringements by defendants.

Interesting, but it sure feels like that suit is more to do with the "Lamborghini" name and logo, the "Lambo" part seems secondary.

Either way, that case would seem to involve using the term in a clearly infringing manner, in their field, for commercial gains. It involves manufacturing products for their cars, with their name and logo on it.

Lambo.com would be more about other uses for "Lambo" existing.

That seems like a big difference, both in law and in common sense.

Brad

 

[jberryhill]

Either way, that case would seem to involve using the term in a clearly infringing manner, in their field, for commercial gains. It involves manufacturing products for their cars, with their name and logo on it.

The question was about whether they have trademark rights in "Lambo". Obviously, that case involved a number of things, but one of the things it involved was the courts apparent recognition that they had such a mark.

No, that is not a cybersquatting case. But the question was about whether they can claim a mark. Quite obviously they have done so.

Additionally, that poster raises the question about marketplace-generated marks by consumers, which has already been discussed above in relation to all kinds of products for which a nickname made up by consumers has become a mark for the product or services.

Lambo.com would be more about other uses for "Lambo" existing.

No, it is about whatever the intent of the domain registrant may have been, and what their use of the domain name has been.