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.

 

[bmugford]

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

I am sorry, but the term "Lambo" has many people using the term for nothing to do with the car company. It is not even deniable.

The strength of this trademark would clearly come into play. It is also undeniable that the car company does not have exclusive use of this term for every potential use.

Proving another company does not have exclusive use to a term is certainly a viable defense when it comes to trademark infringement claims, especially when they are not relying on any actual evidence of infringement.

The case you provided is directly turning "Lambo" into a trademark issue. It would be like me making faucets with "Delta" on them. It basically involves making counterfeit goods.

Those actions are just far more egregious in practice, and again in common sense.

Brad

 

[jhm]

This case could be compared to Rolls Royce taking issue with "rolls", or Jaguar to "jag". Weak and nonsensical

 

[AEProgram]

@lambo.com stay strong and keep fighting, they have no right to this

 

[jberryhill]

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

I am sorry, but the term "Lambo" has many people using the term for nothing to do with the car company. It is not even deniable.

Brad, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

1. Does Lamborghini have trademark rights in "Lambo"? Yes, they do. Whether other people use it for other things is not relevant to the fact that, yes, Lamborghini is well known among consumers in the relevant market place as "Lambo". That has nothing to do with whether it is a surname or used by others for other purposes. I was responding to a poster who said the car company does not have rights in it as a mark, by pointing out that - on that specific question - there has been a US court case in the past.

2. Is that the entire case? Well, of course not. A cybersquatting case is not decided on the sole question of "does the trademark claimant have a trademark". It is decided on what the court finds to have been the most likely intention of the domain registrant in having registered the domain name. That is why I said this case is about whatever the intent of the domain registrant may have been.

Absolutely, there can be a weak mark in a cybersquatting case. Absolutely, there can be a non-unique mark in a cybersquatting case, which is indeed used for other things. But what the case is about is whether the domain registrant's intent most likely arose from one of two things:

(a) the trademark, or

(b) some other reason.

If this case is actually served on Lamborghini, and if they show up, then there is going to be extensive discovery, as I mentioned before. There will be a much larger body of facts on which to argue whether the likely reason was (a) or whether it was (b). That's what a cybersquatting case is about.

You seem to be confusing the elements of the case (existence of a trademark, intent of the registrant) with what you believe should be the outcome of the case. Absent a review of all of the eventual evidence, I doubt the outcome of the case can be predicted at this point. On the other hand, the vast majority of civil cases eventually settle, so there may end up being no resolution of the claims at all.

Incidentally, as discussed upthread, all of your communications with the domain registrant had better show up in those discovery materials since, as it turns out, the claims in the lawsuit relate to activities conducted on Namepros. You may be subpoenaed as a witness concerning the communications you conducted with the plaintiff in the course of the dispute since you are not an attorney and your communications are not privileged from being compelled to be turned over in discovery.

 

[theinvestor]

I find it a bit odd that someone’s nickname on a forum has .com in the username. Seems odd don’t you think? I’m not a lawyer but I don’t see many nicknames on the forum followed by .com. Unless of course you purchased the domain and then started using it AFTER the fact.

In any case; nothing is a slam dunk but the arguments are very weak.

 

[jberryhill]

This case could be compared to Rolls Royce taking issue with "rolls", or Jaguar to "jag".

Yes, it could.

ROLLS:

JAG:

I think you are right. This is very much like that.

Two more examples of a consumer generated mark being adopted by the party thereby identified in the market.

 

[jhm]

Yes, it could.

ROLLS:

Show attachment 221771

JAG:

Show attachment 221773


I think you are right. This is very much like that.

Two more examples of a consumer generated mark being adopted by the party thereby identified in the market.

I respect your point of view in the legal department, but it does become silly. Where does it end? Microsoft taking issue with "micro" or "micro-computer" (Micro-Computer Software), or Nintendo taking issue with "Mario" (Mario being a name, Lambo being name, even if we know Mario to be their number one / best selling gaming character). Its pretty despicable, IMO

 

[bmugford]

I respect your point of view in the legal department, I feel you're better qualified, but it does become quite silly. Where does it end? Microsoft taking issue with "micro" or "micro-computer" (Micro-Computer Software), or Nintendo taking issue with "Mario" (Mario being a name, Lambo being name, even if we know Mario to be their number one gaming character). Its pretty despicable, IMO

You get the justice you can afford. Big companies can afford lots of it.
Sometimes the actual merits of a case don't really matter that much, unfortunately.

Brad

 

[jberryhill]

Where does it end? Microsoft taking issue with "micro" or "micro-computer"

I think it ends with the question of "does anyone call them that?" No.

People routinely refer to Jaguar automobiles as "Jag" and to Rolls Royce automobiles as "Rolls".

Again, a trademark is what people in the relevant market identify as distinguishing the goods of one source from another. It's a functional definition.

Nobody calls "Microsoft" or any of its products "micro".

And, I just remembered another well-known consumer-generated mark - Chevy. General Motors did not start calling them that.

 

[bmugford]

I think it ends with the question of "does anyone call them that?" No.

People routinely refer to Jaguar automobiles as "Jag" and to Rolls Royce automobiles as "Rolls".

Again, a trademark is what people in the relevant market identify as distinguishing the goods of one source from another. It's a functional definition.

Nobody calls "Microsoft" or any of its products "micro".

And, I just remembered another well-known consumer-generated mark - Chevy. General Motors did not start calling them that.

Yep, and people use the terms for other things as well. That is where common sense comes into play.

The terms in themselves are not infringement, absent actual incidents of infringement.

For instance the case you outlined was literally a company making counterfeit car parts.
I don't think any reasonable person would disagree that is a clear cut case of infringement.

I think the point of his comment is more in relation to overzealous claims of TM infringement from large companies.

Brad

 

[Andreas B.]

ROLLS:

Show attachment 221771

JAG:

Show attachment 221773


I think you are right. This is very much like that.

Two more examples of a consumer generated mark being adopted by the party thereby identified in the market.

Rolls?!
Seriously?

So we see, how far that psycho stuff goes...

Don't have the right words for this yet, but this is simply schizophrenic.

You may TM anything you like;...

You know why this all works and has its place in our economy?!

> Because the people, making this rules, sitting in courts (lawyers espec.) and holding hypocrit argumentations MAKE A BUNCH OF MONEY with it.

Simple.

End of free markets.

 

[jberryhill]

The terms in themselves are not infringement, absent actual incidences of infringement.

No one said they were.

However, what is at issue in the current lawsuit is not infringement. Infringement is violating someone's mark by using it on products that do not originate with the mark owner.

Cybersquatting is not infringement. Cybersquatting is registering a domain name that is confusingly similar to a mark with a bad faith intention to profit from that mark. That has nothing to do with infringement, so why you keep making that distinction is a mystery. You don't seem to understand that the reason I mentioned a previous infringement case was on the question of whether there is a trademark, period. No one thinks a cybersquatting case is the same as an infringement case.

So, after getting over the trademark, the question is whether there will be evidence of bad faith intent. The ACPA lays out a list of suggested factors:

--------------------------------

(i) In determining whether a person has a bad faith intent described under subparagraph (A), a court may consider factors such as, but not limited to—

(I)
the trademark or other intellectual property rights of the person, if any, in the domain name;


(II)
the extent to which the domain name consists of the legal name of the person or a name that is otherwise commonly used to identify that person;


(III)
the person’s prior use, if any, of the domain name in connection with the bona fide offering of any goods or services;


(IV)
the person’s bona fide noncommercial or fair use of the mark in a site accessible under the domain name;


(V)
the person’s intent to divert consumers from the mark owner’s online location to a site accessible under the domain name that could harm the goodwill represented by the mark, either for commercial gain or with the intent to tarnish or disparage the mark, by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the site;


(VI)
the person’s offer to transfer, sell, or otherwise assign the domain name to the mark owner or any third party for financial gain without having used, or having an intent to use, the domain name in the bona fide offering of any goods or services, or the person’s prior conduct indicating a pattern of such conduct;


(VII)
the person’s provision of material and misleading false contact information when applying for the registration of the domain name, the person’s intentional failure to maintain accurate contact information, or the person’s prior conduct indicating a pattern of such conduct;


(VIII)
the person’s registration or acquisition of multiple domain names which the person knows are identical or confusingly similar to marks of others that are distinctive at the time of registration of such domain names, or dilutive of famous marks of others that are famous at the time of registration of such domain names, without regard to the goods or services of the parties; and


(IX)
the extent to which the mark incorporated in the person’s domain name registration is or is not distinctive and famous within the meaning of subsection (c).

---------

 

[bmugford]

No one said they were.

However, what is at issue in the current lawsuit is not infringement. Infringement is violating someone's mark by using it on products that do not originate with the mark owner.

Cybersquatting is not infringement. Cybersquatting is registering a domain name that is confusingly similar to a mark with a bad faith intention to profit from that mark. That has nothing to do with infringement, so why you keep making that distinction is a mystery. You don't seem to understand that the reason I mentioned a previous infringement case was on the question of whether there is a trademark, period. No one thinks a cybersquatting case is the same as an infringement case.

So, after getting over the trademark, the question is whether there will be evidence of bad faith intent. The ACPA lays out a list of suggested factors:

That's interesting because in the lawsuit, written by a well qualified lawyer in the field, it uses the wording -

"He has never been accused of infringing the intellectual property rights of others before now."

Would that wording not infer that Lamborghini is making the allegation of infringement now?

Brad

 

[anunt]

I have a serious question

if I was the owner of Lambo.com
can i sell sex dolls on there?

It has nothing to do with Lamborghini but I know deep inside that the traffic I get from lambo.com are from rich people who might be into sex dolls

i see porn and adult sites as a huge business while some see it as bad

so can i sell sex dolls on lambo.com

 

[jberryhill]

Would that wording not imply that Lamborghini is making the allegation of infringement now?

How would I know what Lamborghini alleged? I have never seen the UDRP complaint or any other communications sent by Lamborghini.

And, no, that statement does not suggest he has been accused of infringement. Presumably "now" is the time the document was written and signed. Since it is dated August 24, 2022, I take the statement to mean that as of the current date of the document, he has never been accused of infringement. I'd be willing to bet he's never been accused of infringement as well.

What that wording implies is that he's never been accused of infringement, given that it says "now" and is dated as of the day it was filed.

written by a well qualified lawyer in the field

Yes, Brett is well qualified. He also once filed a lawsuit against a teenager in a trailer park, believing the teenager to be a multi-millionaire:

https://domainnamewire.com/2010/08/30/lawsuit-against-original-camroulette-com-settled/

"It appeared that Brown had identified another (wealthier) Craig Snyder as the culprit instead of the actual Snyder (who says he’s broke)."

I represented the actual Craig Snyder - the broke one - in that suit.

I like Brett and we are good friends. We've even been opposing counsel in two UDRP proceedings:

https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2007/d2007-0148.html

Complainant is TLR, Davis, California, United States of America, represented by Lewis & Hand, LLP, Brooklyn, New York, United States of America.

Respondent is United Engineering Services LLC, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, United States of America, represented by John Berryhill, Media, Pennsylvania, United States of America.

https://www.adrforum.com/domaindecisions/1126697.htm

Complainant is Register.com, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Brett E. Lewis, of Lewis & Hand, LLP, New York, USA. Respondent is Domain-it!, Inc. c/o Domain-It Hostmaster (“Respondent”), represented by John Berryhill, Pennsylvania, USA.

You can find the outcomes of both of those cases at the links.

Brett and I have also had the pleasure of working together on occasion.

But, as for that allegation, there's no reason to believe the plaintiff has ever been accused of infringement, so I think the allegation is probably correct.

 

[bmugford]

https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2007/d2007-0148.html

Complainant is TLR, Davis, California, United States of America, represented by Lewis & Hand, LLP, Brooklyn, New York, United States of America.

Respondent is United Engineering Services LLC, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, United States of America, represented by John Berryhill, Media, Pennsylvania, United States of America.

That's an interesting case. "Engineer" is a rather generic word.

The finding is quite reasonable -

This proceeding well illustrates why the Policy should be used solely to redress clear abuses. Both sides have presented much evidence and much argument about technical aspects of coding, copying, linking, and other practices regularly used in creating and promoting websites. Both presentations have significant evidentiary gaps. In saying this the Panel intends no criticism or ulterior motive of either party; such gaps are inevitable when each side makes a detailed evidentiary presentation. In a proceeding limited by its charter in principle to a single submission by each party, with no live testimony and no cross-examination, there is simply no way for a panel fully to evaluate such a complex fact pattern. How, for example, is a panel to resolve whether similarity in code results from intentional copying (as Complainant alleges) or innocently from both parties’ use of similar computer language for similar subjects (as Respondent alleges)? To the extent such questions are relevant – in this Panel’s experience, they do not go to the heart of most UDRP cases – they are more suited to litigation in the national courts. The Policy was intended to curb intentional cybersquatting, and the present proceeding is not such a case.

Basically, UDRP was not designed to settle this type of dispute.

Brad

 

[bmugford]

And, no, that statement does not suggest he has been accused of infringement. Presumably "now" is the time the document was written and signed. Since it is dated August 24, 2022, I take the statement to mean that as of the current date of the document, he has never been accused of infringement. I'd be willing to bet he's never been accused of infringement as well.

Yeah, that is fair interpretation. "Now" could mean at the time of the lawsuit.

Brad

 

[Mize]

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

In general for intent, where is the weakness in the following?

For any domain purchased as an investment:
Domain is for sale. (to anyone whether they have a trademark or not for the term)
Trademark is irrelevant unless it is being infringed upon.

The question that needs to be answered is:
Is it reasonable to believe that the domain has value to more than one party or to anyone who would want to infringe on that one party (for example a competitor)?

 

[DomainNature]

As i mentioned before I contacted Lamborghini before this case, to offer a rebranding opportunity, I not remember what i wrote them but possible i told them that their brand is too long. They replied that they are not interested.
Then I have seen this case opened here on NP's, this mean they decided to go after Lambo after my email to them, now you know why it took them so many years to act upon (lambo,com) domain, until now they were in hibernation or lambonation.
The response was somewhere after one month of my contact, not remember proper how much it took.

 

[timestamp]

As i mentioned before I contacted Lamborghini before this case, to offer a rebranding opportunity

Are you insane? Rebranding?

 

[DomainNature]

Are you insane? Rebranding?

No, but their brand is crap!

 

[timestamp]

P.s. what a stupid brand name for car is Lamborghini, I have better names and better suited for cars and other tech.

I think you are. Did you offer your rebranding services to other car companies? The ones based on a surname.

 

[DomainNature]

I think you are. Did you offer your rebranding services to other car companies? The ones based on a surname.

I would say as you, but I have solid reasons to do this and yes I have contacted more s***t of car brands, even non car related crap of brands.

 

[anunt]

iTesla is responsible for changing Google to Alphabet and Facebook to Meta and now is working on changing Lamborghini and Apple to one of his domains.

 

[DomainNature]

iTesla is responsible for changing Google to Alphabet and Facebook to Meta and now is working on changing Lamborghini and Apple to one of his domains.

No, i do not care much, they will implore me to sell those domains to them, but we will see soon in the years to come.
Anyway my car brands are more targeted to new startups and I hope they will be able to overthrow such companies from their mighty pedestal.