Read MoreLamborghini S.p.A. won the UDRP it filed against the domain Lambo.com; now the Respondent and registrant of the domain is hitting back with a lawsuit.
The case between Richard Blair, plaintiff, and Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A, defendant, refers to the Lambo.com domain’s acquisition as a follow-up to adopting that moniker (Lambo) as a private alias for activities in various online communities...
UDRP Lambo.com: Following UDRP loss, Respondent files lawsuit against Lamborghini
- Thread starter News
- Start date
- Impact
- 12,642
- Impact
- 12,642
- Impact
- 1,708
- Impact
- 12,642
- Impact
- 12,642
- Impact
- 12,642
- Impact
- 13,262
- Impact
- 12,642
- Impact
- 27,442
I'm thinking a 2025 Urus (with all the nifty upgrade options) and 150K cash in walking around money would make me happy...but it is not my name so it is easy to speculate!
- Impact
- 4,189
- Impact
- 4,189
- Impact
- 12,642
- Impact
- 4,189
- Impact
- 12,642
At long last, someone is getting ready to file a dispositive motion...
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.azd.1307873/gov.uscourts.azd.1307873.48.0.pdf
One of the things that can happen in US civil procedure is, once the parties have done all of the evidence-seeking phase, a party can file for "summary judgment". Summary judgment is a shortcut to a verdict where a party can show (a) there are no genuine issues of disputed material fact, and (b) judgment in their favor is simply a matter of applying the law.
It can be difficult to do that in cybersquatting cases because of the element of intent. While intent can be inferred from objective circumstances, it is frequently the case that if it comes down to the personal credibility of a party, then a court is more likely to suggest that putting that witness in front of a jury is the preferred method of determining credibility. And a jury's determination of credibility can turn on the personal attributes, habits and quirks, of the witness on the stand.
According to the report, the Plaintiff does not plan on filing a motion for summary judgment, because the Plaintiff contends there are "genuine issues of material fact". So the point of the exercise, as far as the Plaintiff is concerned, is to keep the proceeding alive.
The Defendant, on the other hand, is going for a potential win. If they lose the motion on the grounds that there are genuine issues of material fact, then that simply means a jury will be needed to review the evidence.
It's tough to say, but from the general tenor of some of the reports thus far, it doesn't sound as if the Defendant produced a ton of evidence supporting their trademark claim, and may have made some poor assumptions. Because if it does turn out that they didn't take the case seriously and produce sufficient evidence, that could put them in a pickle - depending on what a Phoenix Arizona jury might think of the term "Lambo" without needing a lot of convincing.
But it does appear that a fork in the road is approaching.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.azd.1307873/gov.uscourts.azd.1307873.48.0.pdf
One of the things that can happen in US civil procedure is, once the parties have done all of the evidence-seeking phase, a party can file for "summary judgment". Summary judgment is a shortcut to a verdict where a party can show (a) there are no genuine issues of disputed material fact, and (b) judgment in their favor is simply a matter of applying the law.
It can be difficult to do that in cybersquatting cases because of the element of intent. While intent can be inferred from objective circumstances, it is frequently the case that if it comes down to the personal credibility of a party, then a court is more likely to suggest that putting that witness in front of a jury is the preferred method of determining credibility. And a jury's determination of credibility can turn on the personal attributes, habits and quirks, of the witness on the stand.
According to the report, the Plaintiff does not plan on filing a motion for summary judgment, because the Plaintiff contends there are "genuine issues of material fact". So the point of the exercise, as far as the Plaintiff is concerned, is to keep the proceeding alive.
The Defendant, on the other hand, is going for a potential win. If they lose the motion on the grounds that there are genuine issues of material fact, then that simply means a jury will be needed to review the evidence.
It's tough to say, but from the general tenor of some of the reports thus far, it doesn't sound as if the Defendant produced a ton of evidence supporting their trademark claim, and may have made some poor assumptions. Because if it does turn out that they didn't take the case seriously and produce sufficient evidence, that could put them in a pickle - depending on what a Phoenix Arizona jury might think of the term "Lambo" without needing a lot of convincing.
But it does appear that a fork in the road is approaching.
Attachments
- Impact
- 1,708
- Impact
- 12,642
Similar threads
New posts
-
Hello World!
- 10 posters
- internext
-
ILoveThisBag.com - $3- Post by Domaintrics
Polls of interest
-
Best industry prefix?
- 20 replies
- 40 voters
-
Which is the best price?- 57 replies
- 171 voters
-
What non .com extensions have you sold in 2024?- 35 replies
- 138 voters
Popular this week
-
Seller shadow bans me (deletes name after acq. attempt)- 11 posters
- 40 replies
-
How do end users find names?- 2 points
- 33 replies
-
Trademarked Name - To Dispute or Not- 12 posters
- 17 replies
-
Would you buy a .com of a former business?
- 2 points
- 15 replies
-
ExperiedDomains.net watchlist question- 7 posters
- 14 replies
Popular this month
-
NamePros Parking adds Buy Now (and much more)- 70 points
- 267 comments
-
HSTF.com: Seller gets questioned about value, raises price
- 8 points
- 90 replies
-
Squadhelp is now "atom"- 13 points
- 72 replies
-
Changes coming to GoDaddy Auctions- 7 points
- 64 replies
-
James Booth sells Galatea.com for $275K
- 13 points
- 58 replies
