events I AM LAMBO

lambo.com · May 5, 2022

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.

jberryhill · Aug 10, 2022

For example, running through all three-member panel decisions at WIPO for the last, say, two years:

rez.live	WIPO D2021-3862	2022-03-28	Complaint denied
veho.com	WIPO D2021-4272	2022-03-25	Complaint denied
reimex.com	WIPO D2021-4256	2022-03-21	Transfer with dissenting opinion
protanium.com	WIPO D2022-0030	2022-03-20	Complaint denied
cxone.com	WIPO D2021-4018	2022-03-14	Transfer
maaden.com	WIPO D2021-3590	2022-02-07	Transfer with dissenting opinion
luma.com	WIPO D2021-3129	2021-12-29	Complaint denied
libertas.org	WIPO D2021-3086	2021-12-26	Complaint denied
teddyfresh.net	WIPO D2021-2985	2021-12-16	Transfer
cars24.me	WIPO DME2021-0014	2021-12-07	Transfer
caribou.com	WIPO D2021-2977	2021-12-06	Complaint denied
madamealexanderdollsupplies.com	WIPO D2021-3005	2021-11-24	Transfer
nalli.cloud	WIPO D2021-1831	2021-11-24	Complaint denied
ekapusta.com	WIPO D2021-2262	2021-11-16	Complaint denied
greyorange.club	WIPO D2021-2908	2021-11-01	Transfer

walbrofuelpumps.com	WIPO D2021-2409	2021-10-29	Complaint denied
clickbetter.com	WIPO D2021-1894	2021-10-27	Complaint denied
m31.capital	WIPO D2021-2297	2021-10-10	Complaint denied with dissenting and concurring opinion
atvtracksystems.com	WIPO D2021-1774	2021-10-04	Complaint denied
torrentdefenders.com	WIPO D2021-2428	2021-10-04	Complaint denied
medotronic.com	WIPO D2021-1758	2021-09-28	Complaint denied
transcrip.com	WIPO D2021-2220	2021-09-27	Complaint denied
ingramer.com	WIPO D2021-1877	2021-09-21	Transfer
nuro.com	WIPO D2021-2166	2021-09-14	Complaint denied
thehypecompany.com	WIPO D2021-1850	2021-09-13	Complaint denied
tanishq.com	WIPO D2021-1860	2021-09-10	Transfer with dissenting opinion
talantiz.com	WIPO D2021-1945	2021-09-10	Transfer
uniswap.com	WIPO D2021-1556	2021-09-03	Transfer
hongniu.cc	WIPO D2021-1297	2021-08-31	Transfer with dissenting opinion
gnp.com	WIPO D2021-1136	2021-08-26	Complaint denied

alsthom.sucks	WIPO D2021-1148	2021-08-12	Transfer
euromaster.sucks	WIPO D2021-1361	2021-08-05	Transfer
brixmor.sucks	WIPO D2021-1610	2021-08-05	Transfer
help-aetna.com	WIPO D2021-1565	2021-08-03	Complaint denied
prodirectonline.com	WIPO D2021-1670	2021-07-30	Transfer
abreco.com	WIPO D2021-1572	2021-07-27	Complaint denied
foreveriam.com	WIPO D2021-1550	2021-07-27	Complaint denied
yellostargames.com	WIPO D2021-1655	2021-07-19	Transfer
corming.com	WIPO D2021-0549	2021-07-02	Complaint denied
casinoclassic.com	WIPO D2021-0536	2021-06-25	Complaint denied
covestro.sucks	WIPO D2021-0877	2021-06-22	Complaint denied
damstra.com	WIPO D2021-0675	2021-06-02	Complaint denied
reboxed.com	WIPO D2021-0886	2021-06-02	Complaint denied
mychart.org	WIPO D2021-0702	2021-06-01	Transfer
xigua.com	WIPO D2020-3434	2021-05-31	Complaint denied

solverde.com	WIPO D2020-3138	2021-05-25	Transfer
trivago.sucks	WIPO D2021-0692	2021-05-24	Transfer
mandmdirect.sucks	WIPO D2020-2545	2021-05-13	Transfer
zohoor.com	WIPO D2021-0302	2021-05-12	Complaint denied
kingkampachi.com	WIPO D2021-0371	2021-05-05	Transfer
bucherer-rolex.com	WIPO D2021-0693	2021-05-04	Transfer
citycentre.com	WIPO D2021-0591	2021-04-30	Complaint denied
sculpd.com	WIPO D2021-0322	2021-04-27	Transfer
rykiel.com	WIPO D2020-3351	2021-04-20	Complaint denied
aveed.com	WIPO D2021-0511	2021-04-19	Complaint denied
eleclerc.sucks	WIPO D2021-0186	2021-04-16	Transfer
voguemagazin.com	WIPO D2020-3490	2021-04-14	Transfer
ilko.com	WIPO D2020-3379	2021-04-09	Complaint denied
hsil.com	WIPO D2020-3416	2021-04-04	Complaint denied
tiktoktruck.com	WIPO D2020-3520	2021-04-01	Transfer

biohacks.com	WIPO D2021-0050	2021-03-27	Complaint denied
unbiased.com	WIPO D2021-0113	2021-03-23	Complaint denied
affron.com	WIPO D2020-3529	2021-03-23	Complaint denied with dissenting opinion
itdc.com	WIPO D2021-0048	2021-03-22	Complaint denied
bfgoodrich.sucks	WIPO D2020-2517	2021-03-12	Transfer
tetrapak.sucks	WIPO D2020-3398	2021-03-09	Transfer
auconet.com	WIPO D2020-2651	2021-03-03	Complaint denied
docsavage.store	WIPO D2020-3496	2021-02-18	Transfer
sanofi.sucks	WIPO D2020-2836	2021-02-11	Transfer
canadianvogue.com	WIPO D2020-3233	2021-02-10	Transfer
finwise.com	WIPO D2020-3135	2021-01-19	Transfer
cloudtango.com	WIPO D2020-2891	2021-01-12	Complaint denied with concurring opinion
fomo.games	WIPO D2020-2663	2021-01-08	Transfer

Then we have 73 three-member panels, and it looks like 6 dissents. I'm just eyeballing the tables, so correct my numbers if I counted wrong.

So, that's about an 8.2% dissent rate. Not common. Not rare. About the same as the incidence of people having blue eyes. Now, whether blue eyes are rare can vary quite a bit with one's local demography. I have stellar, captivating blue eyes, so I don't think of it as particularly rare.

Some other stats are worth looking at, just in this two year subsample.

The Denial rate looks to be around 53%, which is high relative to the UDRP overall. Now, there are reasons for that, and if we limited to "respondent-requested three member panels", the denial rate likely goes up a notch (from WIPO's historical figures).

So, looking at "Dissents from a Transfer" versus "Dissents from a Denial" in the overall three-member panel context, we have:

Dissents from a transfer: 4 cases.

Dissents from a denial: 2 cases.

Now that's interesting, but also not unexpected. The majority of three member panel cases are denials, by a slight margin, but more frequently than in UDRP cases generally. So, maybe its just low number noise, but transfers draw more dissents than denials.

Finally, I've highlighted the cases above in which I defended the domain registrant, in case there are people here unfamiliar with what I do.

bmugford · Aug 10, 2022

jberryhill said:
For example, running through all three-member panel decisions at WIPO for the last, say, two years:

rez.live WIPO D2021-3862 2022-03-28 Complaint denied
veho.com WIPO D2021-4272 2022-03-25 Complaint denied
reimex.com WIPO D2021-4256 2022-03-21 Transfer with dissenting opinion
protanium.com WIPO D2022-0030 2022-03-20 Complaint denied
cxone.com WIPO D2021-4018 2022-03-14 Transfer
maaden.com WIPO D2021-3590 2022-02-07 Transfer with dissenting opinion
luma.com WIPO D2021-3129 2021-12-29 Complaint denied
libertas.org WIPO D2021-3086 2021-12-26 Complaint denied
teddyfresh.net WIPO D2021-2985 2021-12-16 Transfer
cars24.me WIPO DME2021-0014 2021-12-07 Transfer
caribou.com WIPO D2021-2977 2021-12-06 Complaint denied
madamealexanderdollsupplies.com WIPO D2021-3005 2021-11-24 Transfer
nalli.cloud WIPO D2021-1831 2021-11-24 Complaint denied
ekapusta.com WIPO D2021-2262 2021-11-16 Complaint denied
greyorange.club WIPO D2021-2908 2021-11-01 Transfer

walbrofuelpumps.com WIPO D2021-2409 2021-10-29 Complaint denied
clickbetter.com WIPO D2021-1894 2021-10-27 Complaint denied
m31.capital WIPO D2021-2297 2021-10-10 Complaint denied with dissenting and concurring opinion
atvtracksystems.com WIPO D2021-1774 2021-10-04 Complaint denied
torrentdefenders.com WIPO D2021-2428 2021-10-04 Complaint denied
medotronic.com WIPO D2021-1758 2021-09-28 Complaint denied
transcrip.com WIPO D2021-2220 2021-09-27 Complaint denied
ingramer.com WIPO D2021-1877 2021-09-21 Transfer
nuro.com WIPO D2021-2166 2021-09-14 Complaint denied
thehypecompany.com WIPO D2021-1850 2021-09-13 Complaint denied
tanishq.com WIPO D2021-1860 2021-09-10 Transfer with dissenting opinion
talantiz.com WIPO D2021-1945 2021-09-10 Transfer
uniswap.com WIPO D2021-1556 2021-09-03 Transfer
hongniu.cc WIPO D2021-1297 2021-08-31 Transfer with dissenting opinion
gnp.com WIPO D2021-1136 2021-08-26 Complaint denied

alsthom.sucks WIPO D2021-1148 2021-08-12 Transfer
euromaster.sucks WIPO D2021-1361 2021-08-05 Transfer
brixmor.sucks WIPO D2021-1610 2021-08-05 Transfer
help-aetna.com WIPO D2021-1565 2021-08-03 Complaint denied
prodirectonline.com WIPO D2021-1670 2021-07-30 Transfer
abreco.com WIPO D2021-1572 2021-07-27 Complaint denied
foreveriam.com WIPO D2021-1550 2021-07-27 Complaint denied
yellostargames.com WIPO D2021-1655 2021-07-19 Transfer
corming.com WIPO D2021-0549 2021-07-02 Complaint denied
casinoclassic.com WIPO D2021-0536 2021-06-25 Complaint denied
covestro.sucks WIPO D2021-0877 2021-06-22 Complaint denied
damstra.com WIPO D2021-0675 2021-06-02 Complaint denied
reboxed.com WIPO D2021-0886 2021-06-02 Complaint denied
mychart.org WIPO D2021-0702 2021-06-01 Transfer
xigua.com WIPO D2020-3434 2021-05-31 Complaint denied

solverde.com WIPO D2020-3138 2021-05-25 Transfer
trivago.sucks WIPO D2021-0692 2021-05-24 Transfer
mandmdirect.sucks WIPO D2020-2545 2021-05-13 Transfer
zohoor.com WIPO D2021-0302 2021-05-12 Complaint denied
kingkampachi.com WIPO D2021-0371 2021-05-05 Transfer
bucherer-rolex.com WIPO D2021-0693 2021-05-04 Transfer
citycentre.com WIPO D2021-0591 2021-04-30 Complaint denied
sculpd.com WIPO D2021-0322 2021-04-27 Transfer
rykiel.com WIPO D2020-3351 2021-04-20 Complaint denied
aveed.com WIPO D2021-0511 2021-04-19 Complaint denied
eleclerc.sucks WIPO D2021-0186 2021-04-16 Transfer
voguemagazin.com WIPO D2020-3490 2021-04-14 Transfer
ilko.com WIPO D2020-3379 2021-04-09 Complaint denied
hsil.com WIPO D2020-3416 2021-04-04 Complaint denied
tiktoktruck.com WIPO D2020-3520 2021-04-01 Transfer

biohacks.com WIPO D2021-0050 2021-03-27 Complaint denied
unbiased.com WIPO D2021-0113 2021-03-23 Complaint denied
affron.com WIPO D2020-3529 2021-03-23 Complaint denied with dissenting opinion
itdc.com WIPO D2021-0048 2021-03-22 Complaint denied
bfgoodrich.sucks WIPO D2020-2517 2021-03-12 Transfer
tetrapak.sucks WIPO D2020-3398 2021-03-09 Transfer
auconet.com WIPO D2020-2651 2021-03-03 Complaint denied
docsavage.store WIPO D2020-3496 2021-02-18 Transfer
sanofi.sucks WIPO D2020-2836 2021-02-11 Transfer
canadianvogue.com WIPO D2020-3233 2021-02-10 Transfer
finwise.com WIPO D2020-3135 2021-01-19 Transfer
cloudtango.com WIPO D2020-2891 2021-01-12 Complaint denied with concurring opinion
fomo.games WIPO D2020-2663 2021-01-08 Transfer

Then we have 73 three-member panels, and it looks like 6 dissents. I'm just eyeballing the tables, so correct my numbers if I counted wrong.

So, that's about an 8.2% dissent rate. Not common. Not rare. About the same as the incidence of people having blue eyes. Now, whether blue eyes are rare can vary quite a bit with one's local demography. I have stellar, captivating blue eyes, so I don't think of it as particularly rare.

Some other stats are worth looking at, just in this two year subsample.

The Denial rate looks to be around 53%, which is high relative to the UDRP overall. Now, there are reasons for that, and if we limited to "respondent-requested three member panels", the denial rate likely goes up a notch (from WIPO's historical figures).

So, looking at "Dissents from a Transfer" versus "Dissents from a Denial" in the overall three-member panel context, we have:

Dissents from a transfer: 4 cases.

Dissents from a denial: 2 cases.

Now that's interesting, but also not unexpected. The majority of three member panel cases are denials, by a slight margin, but more frequently than in UDRP cases generally. So, maybe its just low number noise, but transfers draw more dissents than denials.

Finally, I've highlighted the cases above in which I defended the domain registrant, in case there are people here unfamiliar with what I do.

That is interesting there are only (73) 3 member panels in 2 years.

I assume the denial rate is higher because generally better domains / better cases tend to opt for (3) panelists.

Brad

jberryhill · Aug 10, 2022

branding said:
Out of curiousity, if defendant decides to take this to court, do you think his decision to refrain from using legal council on the UDRP may have a negative impact on seeking legal recourse in court?

Okay, this gets a little complicated, but the first question is "which court"?

The UDRP decision will not be implemented for ten days from notification, to permit the domain registrant to file a court case in the "Mutual Jurisdiction".

The "Mutual Jurisdiction" is determined by the selection of the complainant when the dispute was filed to be the jurisdiction of the registrant, or the jurisdiction of the registrar.

There are some things that haven't been tested, such as what happens when the initial registrant was a privacy service, and the revealed registrant is somewhere else.

But to simplify this a bit. The registrar is in the US. A US court doesn't care what happened in the UDRP or how the decision was made. If an action is pursued in the US, what one is seeking to determine is "whether the registration is lawful" under the applicable law. UDRP 4(k) specifically states it is an "independent determination". The way this has shaken out in US courts it that the appropriate action is to seek a judgment about whether the domain registration is lawful under applicable US trademark law.

Now, if an action were filed in, say, the UK, then there are some foundational problems. There has been at least one decision of a UK court to the effect that UK courts do not have jurisdiction to reverse, consider, or otherwise resolve a dispute which has originally arisen under the UDRP. I am not a UK lawyer, but that is what I am told by lawyers who practice in the UK and in Australia. Canada, for whatever reason, is fine with it.

In post-UDRP litigation, obviously the UDRP winner wants the UDRP decision to be persuasive, and obviously the UDRP loser would prefer the court not put any weight on the outcome. But, like anything, a court is entitled to make whatever of the UDRP proceeding it chooses to. For example, if a party had submitted forged documents or engaged in other interesting behavior in the UDRP, then that might illuminate what the court makes of the overall issue of bad faith under applicable law. So, it kind of depends on "what the UDRP proceeding is being used for".

Counsel may or may not have helped change the outcome, though. Counsel can present the facts and the law in a way that makes sense to the kinds of people who are going to be making the decision, but Counsel can't change the facts. So if there was no evidence of this nickname prior to the domain name registration, then the domain registrant is starting out with a problem in using that as a defense.

jberryhill · Aug 10, 2022

bmugford said:
I assume the denial rate is higher because generally better domains / better cases tend to opt for (3) panelists.

That's is believed to be correct. Nobody blows $2K to come up with a defense for stuff like InstagramNFT.com (which is a currently pending case).

And most UDRP cases are of that caliber.

Future Sensors · Aug 10, 2022

jberryhill said:
Nobody blows $2K to come up with a defense for stuff like InstagramNFT.com (which is a currently pending case).

With some exceptions?

https://www.dndisputes.com/case/d2016-0394/

J.R. · Aug 10, 2022

Hate to see a transfer like this against a registrant. In a case of this magnitude, it would have been better to secure the services of a UDRP lawyer. Hopefully, the respondent appeals to the Courts using the dissent as the basis for a defense.

Lambo.com is worth fighting for, but hire a UDRP legal expert while you still have time to save your legal rights.

Make them pay you market value for Lambo.com in the long term, don't accept this UDRP decision.

jberryhill · Aug 10, 2022

Future Sensors said:
With some exceptions?

https://www.dndisputes.com/case/d2016-0394/

That's a single member panel decision. But you may have missed a larger point there:

The Respondent explains in this context that upon notification of the Complaint, the Respondent was quite surprised to find out that the disputed domain names had been added to its account. The Respondent acknowledges that they have been registered for the Respondent but that it does not want them. Therefore, the Respondent requested to transfer the disputed domain names to the Complainants, notwithstanding the Complainants' refusal to accept transfer of them without the need for a panel determination as the Respondent believes that there is no dispute between the parties on the subject of to whom these domain names should be registered.

There was no defense in that case.

The Response was a request to transfer the domain names, because the Complainant had actually refused to take them.

So, no, nobody defends names like that. The entire POINT of the Response was to demand transfer of the domain names.

bmugford · Aug 10, 2022

Future Sensors said:
With some exceptions?

https://www.dndisputes.com/case/d2016-0394/

That's an interesting case, basically hiring an attorney because you want to turn the domain over and Facebook refused to accept it I guess.

B. Respondent

The Respondent states that it was not its indication to have the disputed domain names. The Respondent asserts that the disputed domain names had been registered by an agent of the Respondent with access to the Respondent's account. The Respondent explains in this context that upon notification of the Complaint, the Respondent was quite surprised to find out that the disputed domain names had been added to its account. The Respondent acknowledges that they have been registered for the Respondent but that it does not want them. Therefore, the Respondent requested to transfer the disputed domain names to the Complainants, notwithstanding the Complainants' refusal to accept transfer of them without the need for a panel determination as the Respondent believes that there is no dispute between the parties on the subject of to whom these domain names should be registered.

Reallybigidea.com · Aug 10, 2022

Hi, as a domainer i do not support this udrp decision but tbh lambo is a well-known pseudonym of Lamborghini.
E.g.:Chevy is Chevrolet chevy.com forwards to Chevrolet.com

Future Sensors · Aug 10, 2022

jberryhill said:
There was no defense in that case.

Okay, so your name is only attached to this case, but you didn't do the defense part, only submitting the forms, I guess.

branding · Aug 10, 2022

jberryhill said:
Okay, this gets a little complicated, but the first question is "which court"?

The UDRP decision will not be implemented for ten days from notification, to permit the domain registrant to file a court case in the "Mutual Jurisdiction".

The "Mutual Jurisdiction" is determined by the selection of the complainant when the dispute was filed to be the jurisdiction of the registrant, or the jurisdiction of the registrar.

There are some things that haven't been tested, such as what happens when the initial registrant was a privacy service, and the revealed registrant is somewhere else.

But to simplify this a bit. The registrar is in the US. A US court doesn't care what happened in the UDRP or how the decision was made. If an action is pursued in the US, what one is seeking to determine is "whether the registration is lawful" under the applicable law. UDRP 4(k) specifically states it is an "independent determination". The way this has shaken out in US courts it that the appropriate action is to seek a judgment about whether the domain registration is lawful under applicable US trademark law.

Now, if an action were filed in, say, the UK, then there are some foundational problems. There has been at least one decision of a UK court to the effect that UK courts do not have jurisdiction to reverse, consider, or otherwise resolve a dispute which has originally arisen under the UDRP. I am not a UK lawyer, but that is what I am told by lawyers who practice in the UK and in Australia. Canada, for whatever reason, is fine with it.

In post-UDRP litigation, obviously the UDRP winner wants the UDRP decision to be persuasive, and obviously the UDRP loser would prefer the court not put any weight on the outcome. But, like anything, a court is entitled to make whatever of the UDRP proceeding it chooses to. For example, if a party had submitted forged documents or engaged in other interesting behavior in the UDRP, then that might illuminate what the court makes of the overall issue of bad faith under applicable law. So, it kind of depends on "what the UDRP proceeding is being used for".

Counsel may or may not have helped change the outcome, though. Counsel can present the facts and the law in a way that makes sense to the kinds of people who are going to be making the decision, but Counsel can't change the facts. So if there was no evidence of this nickname prior to the domain name registration, then the domain registrant is starting out with a problem in using that as a defense.

Thank you for taking the time to write up this elaborate reply.

Much appreciated!

jberryhill · Aug 10, 2022

bmugford said:
That's an interesting case, basically hiring an attorney because you want to turn the domain over and Facebook refused to accept it I guess.

The UDRP has changed since then, and there is a more formal way of getting that done now.

Any attorney who counsels domain registrants will tell you that we are frequently contacted by people who really don't understand what they are doing, have awful names, and have received a UDRP.

Simply unwinding those can be a big relief from people who would prefer not to have had a decision against them. Even if you win a UDRP dispute, your name is searchable by all kinds of people whose only takeaway is "this person was involved in some legal dispute and was accused of doing some awful thing."

Sometimes, crappy names are included in portfolio purchases and not weeded out quickly enough, and the domain registrant doesn't want an adverse decision to affect possible future disputes.

There are all kinds of reasons to want to expeditiously dispose of names that, for whatever reason, one would be better off not having.

The UDRP did not have a procedure built-in for this, and you occasionally run into a junior attorney somewhere who wants to get his or her name on a UDRP decision, instead of expeditiously recover the desired domain name(s) for their client. So, as a last ditch, one filed a Response requesting transfer of the names, if there was no other way to get the thing over with. There are a bunch of decisions on that topic of "when a decision is or is not warranted."

Since then Rule 17 was added to the UDRP to provide a mechanism for early agreement to transfer, so it doesn't come as some surprise to the complainant. When WIPO commences a proceeding, they now provide their preferred form so that the parties can simply sign off on having WIPO notify the registrar that the parties have agreed to a transfer of the domain name.

So you see a lot fewer of those kinds of decisions, although they still come up once in a while.

There was actually one case early on, which I don't remember now, where the panelist decided not to transfer the domain name because, by asking to transfer it, the domain registrant was apparently acting in good faith. Prior to filing for a direct transfer, I would usually advise opposing counsel that, "okay, I'm going to request transfer, but it is up to the panel if they want to do it or not." Once in a while, that would be sufficient to get the thing over.

jberryhill · Aug 10, 2022

Future Sensors said:
Okay, so your name is only attached to this case, but you didn't do the defense part, only submitting the forms, I guess.

No, I submitted a Response on behalf of the respondent, requesting transfer of the domain name and explaining the circumstances around why the registrant had them. The panel decided to issue a decision anyway. There's another one involving a really big list of names that were in a bulk acquisition, as I recall.

jberryhill · Aug 10, 2022

Here's another one:

https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2008/d2008-1831.html

Shortly after receipt of the Complaint, Respondent's counsel contacted Complainant's counsel and offered to transfer the disputed domain names to Respondent. [sic] Email communications between the parties' representatives continued through December 23, 2008, concerning the disputed domain names and certain other domain names owned by Respondent that included the word EROS. When the parties could not reach agreement, Respondent filed its Response, which includes the initially unqualified statement “Respondent requests this Panel to order transfer of the [disputed] domain names to the Complainant”.

...
As transfer constitutes all the relief to which Complainant would be entitled in a UDRP proceeding after a full review of the merits, ordinarily that would end the Panel's analysis. The Panel sees no reason here to depart from that sensible approach. The principal occasion for attention to the substantive issues raised in the Complaint in the face of a consent to transfer is for precedential value against a serial cybersquatter, to facilitate a subsequent complainant's charge that the respondent had engaged in a “pattern” of conduct violating the Policy, see Policy, paragraph 4(b)(ii); WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, paragraph 3.3; Almaden Valley Athletic Club v. Texas International Property Associates - NA NA, WIPO Case No. D2008-0600.2 As neither Respondent nor any entity with LITEROTICA in its name has been named as a respondent in any reported Policy proceeding, no such circumstance obtains in this case. There is no reason and no need for any findings on the merits, so the Panel makes none.

So, that's an example of a requested transfer absent any adverse finding under the Policy.

The Durfer · Aug 10, 2022

curious as to what @lambo.com is going to do now. Please update with your process, ty. I hope you fight it to the supreme court. gl.

The Durfer · Aug 10, 2022

The Durfer said:
curious as to what @lambo.com is going to do now. Please update with your process, ty. I hope you fight it to the supreme court. gl.

if anybody has a chance with this its @lambo.com, i mean he has the name, the nickname, the regged b4 the official tm date. idk, good luck. yipes.

Keith · Aug 10, 2022

Terrible decision. I’d have hired an attorney but that’s just me…

jberryhill · Aug 10, 2022

The Durfer said:
i mean he has the name, the nickname, the regged b4 the official tm date

Just out of curiosity, when do you believe (a) he registered the domain name, (b) he adopted the nickname, and (c) the Complainant became known as "Lambo"?

The Durfer · Aug 10, 2022

jberryhill said:
Just out of curiosity, when do you believe (a) he registered the domain name, (b) he adopted the nickname, and (c) the Complainant became known as "Lambo"?

rite word of mouth, but word of mouth has been known to be solid evidence as well.

Keith · Aug 10, 2022

The owner of Vette better watch out

The Durfer · Aug 11, 2022

i was thinking he regged it in 2000 like this says, but he couldve been one that is was passed on to as well.

jberryhill · Aug 11, 2022

The Durfer said:
i was thinking he regged it in 2000 like this says

No. The domain name was registered in 2000. Until early 2018, it was registered to a John Lambeth. The last-captured WHOIS history to John Lambeth is dated February 28, 2018.

Screen Shot 2022-08-10 at 8.04.26 PM.png

After that, the domain name moves to Namesilo and goes under privacy.

So the earliest he could have had the domain name was March 2018.

The thing is, if you look at old Namepros posts, they automatically identify users by their current username, which can change. BUT, you can also look at old Namepros threads on archive.org, for example, to get an idea of when a username has been changed.

And, of course, it would be a little odd if someone had the username "DomainExample.com" if they didn't own "DomainExample.com".

So, Namepros turns out not to be a good resource for proving that the nickname existed before the domain name was acquired.

The Durfer · Aug 11, 2022

jberryhill said:
No. The domain name was registered in 2000. Until early 2018, it was registered to a John Lambeth. The last-captured WHOIS history to John Lambeth is dated February 28, 2018.

Show attachment 220847

After that, the domain name moves to Namesilo and goes under privacy.

So the earliest he could have had the domain name was March 2018.

He is John Lambeth though, one in the same.

jberryhill · Aug 11, 2022

The Durfer said:
He is John Lambeth though, one in the same.

The registrar didn't think so, and it is their job to know who is the registrant:

Screen Shot 2022-08-10 at 8.12.13 PM.png

Did you read the decision?

The domain name was registered to a John Lambeth in the UK at least until the end of February 2018. The person identified as the registrant by the registrar is a Richard Blair in the United States.

Those do not look like "one in the same" person to me.

The Durfer · Aug 11, 2022

who is richard blair? @lambo.com is john lambeth.

events I AM LAMBO

Top Member

Top Member

www.DataCube.comTop Member

Top Member

Top Member

78% of human domainers will be replaced by robotsTop Member

Established Member

Top Member

www.DataCube.comTop Member

B. Respondent​

THIS DOMAIN SOLD. Username is not valid.Top Member

78% of human domainers will be replaced by robotsTop Member

Private InvestorTop Member

Top Member

Top Member

Top Member

Wesley SweatmanTop Member

Wesley SweatmanTop Member

Top Member

Top Member

Wesley SweatmanTop Member

Top Member

Wesley SweatmanTop Member

Top Member

Wesley SweatmanTop Member

Top Member

Wesley SweatmanTop Member

Similar threads

We're social

Pinned

Appreciation

Agreement

B. Respondent