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.

 

[jberryhill]

I think this has more to do with who filed the udrp

Well, of course it does.

In any trademark dispute, reputation matters.

When the Google results look like this:

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:

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.

 

[bmugford]

Theoretically anyone out of this 1500 people and 551 companies could abuse the UDRP to get the domain. Is there maybe a case where actually multiple complainants tried to get a domain at the same time?

This is not a dispute, but I once had a case where (2) different companies tried to threaten me over an "Edible" domain at around the same time.

I always wondered about those domains like MicrosoftFacebook.com. If they both file a dispute, who gets it?

Brad

 

[bmugford]

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.

Fair enough, but sometimes you just get bad a decision regardless of the dispute itself.

Even if you present the best case in the world, you are completely at the mercy of the panelists who could rule for or against you based on any whim, with no appeal process.

You represented the defendant in VisitQatar.com. It went 3-0 for the complainant.

If you look at the history of these "Visit" domains there is basically no precedent that is followed and the decisions are unpredictable and erratic.

When the system yields results that are this unpredictable, the system itself is flawed.

IMO.

Brad

 

[jberryhill]

When the system yields results that are this unpredictable, the system itself is flawed.

I don't know what you mean by "this unpredictable" absent some quantifiable measurement.

I don't believe that "agrees with me 100% of the time" is a reliable measurement of whether something is flawed.

It's also worth understanding something about the way legal practice works. I turn down a lot of frivolous cases from people who have no chance of winning, and who somehow think "hiring a lawyer" turns a loser case into a winner. As mentioned in the thread above, I will also represent people who are trying to extricate themselves from a case arising from drunk-registering, unhelpful friends, portfolio purchases with bad names in them, etc., or just plain old ignorance or bad judgment.

That doesn't make every case which I do take as strong as every other case. Sometimes, I might believe there is a slim chance of a win, but if there is a non-frivolous defense and the client is fully informed, then we will make that non-frivolous defense.

When I showed up at the emergency room after my heart stopped beating, it might have gone either way, but not every patient in my condition can be saved. Some show up in better condition than others. When I went for my last check-up, my cardiologist said, "It's nice to have a success story now and then." He doesn't win every time either, but he did with me.

I don't think you are going to find any system of adjudication - whether its arbitration, courts, or anything else - that will satisfy the standard of "agrees with me every time", but I don't think that is the measure of how "flawed" it is. But, even so, if we cover the years 2019 to present and include all cases which have gone to a decision in which I represented either party, then it comes to around 53 cases. Of those, one case, VisitQatar.com, did not result in a win for my client. Do I think "agrees with me 98.1% of the time" is "flawed"? No, I don't. But I think I can deal with a world that doesn't go my way 2% of the time.

Your mileage may vary, but I consider a 98% hit rate to be within the range of "predictable".

There are situations where reasonable minds can differ. I think several of those cases could have gone either way. You are not going to reach perfection in any human system of decisionmaking. That's just the way it is.

The basic outline in this one is that some guy acquired a domain name that is overwhelmingly and strongly associated with a luxury auto brand, put it up for sale for millions, and had a sketchy explanation for why that doesn't really hold up to a lot of scrutiny and wasn't supported by convincing evidence. That's the starting point for "what do you think he was up to?" Picking around the edges with surnames or other companies doesn't make the affirmative story any more convincing.

 

[Future Sensors]

I always wondered about those domains like MicrosoftFacebook.com. If they both file a dispute, who gets it?

Here's a blog post about such a situation:

https://giga.law/blog/2015/12/02/multiple-trademarks

 

[bmugford]

Here's a blog post about this situation:

https://giga.law/blog/2015/12/02/multiple-trademarks

Interesting article.

Brad

 

[jberryhill]

There are also more than 1500 people alone on LinkedIn with the surname, out of many more thousands in the world.

That's right. And you know what would make an argument like that more convincing?

How many other surname domains does the registrant have?

For example, BOSCH is a well known brand for things from kitchen appliances to auto parts. It's also a surname.

So, what kinds of things would persuade you that bosch.net was registered because it is a surname, and not a well known brand?

https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2017-2549

"The Respondent has provided credible and detailed evidence that the Disputed Domain Name forms part of its portfolio of domain names which are used in a business providing email addresses to persons where the second-level domain name element of the relevant email address corresponds to a person's surname.

The Panel has no doubt that this represents a legitimate and bona fide business. A number of previous UDRP panels have reached the same conclusion in relation to the Respondent's business in this regard (or its predecessors in that business) – see for example Grasso's Koninklijke Machinefabrieken N.V., currently acting as Royal GEA Grasso Holding N.V. v. Tucows.com Co, WIPO Case No. D2009-0115; International Raelian Religion and Raelian Religion of France v. Mailbank.com Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-1210; and Buhl Optical Co v. Mailbank.com, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-1277."

So, absolutely, it's fine to register domain names based on their significance as a surname, if that was the motivation. However, if this is the only surname domain name the respondent owns, then why this one and no others?

I typically find that a domainer who has one dictionary word or phrase will typically have several other domain names relating to the same word or phrase. If a domainer has one surname, they typically have several others. One way to demonstrate that a challenged domain name was registered because it was a surname, and not someone's trademark, is to provide a list of the OTHER surname domains that were registered for the same reason.

There are a lot of surnames in the world. Some are more popular than others. But if you are going to say "I registered this domain name because it was a surname" then the next question is "what other surnames did you register for the same reason?"

And if the answer is "there aren't any others", then you kind of wonder "Why this one in particular? What made it so special?"

 

[Brian L.]

Fight the good fight!

 

[MadAboutDomains]

There are a lot of surnames in the world. Some are more popular than others. But if you are going to say "I registered this domain name because it was a surname" then the next question is "what other surnames did you register for the same reason?"

And if the answer is "there aren't any others", then you kind of wonder "Why this one in particular? What made it so special?"

Could be "because I wanted that one surname and I'm not made of money".

How many surnames does one have to own in order to keep their domain?

I think that you should have got a TM and established a brand on it (for something other than cars, or related industries, obviously), they didn't have a registration on LAMBO since it expired and you could have established legitimate rights in it somewhere in the world. I guess it's too late now... or maybe it isn't...

 

[jberryhill]

they didn't have a registration on LAMBO since it expired

First, that's not true. They have several:

Second, as has been explained on Namepros many times, whether someone has allowed their trademark registration to lapse does not necessarily mean they have abandoned the underlying trademark. I might let my dog license expire, but that doesn't mean I don't have a dog.

People let their trademark registrations expire and go on using their trademark and maintaining their rights in their trademarks all of the time. Registration provides a lot of enforcement advantages, but it does not determine whether someone "has a trademark" any more than having a dog license determines whether someone "has a dog".

But, that said...

REGISTRATION IS NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE A TRADEMARK. I understand there are people who will never grasp "what is a trademark" and how that is not the same thing as "why is it desirable to register a trademark." I totally get that people think you "get a trademark" by filing a piece of paper with the government. But, what you will notice, is that you aren't going to find a single trademark attorney who is going to agree with that persistent and wrong belief among domainers who have principally learned misinformation about trademarks from other domainers.

It is unfortunate that a lot of misinformation about trademarks gets passed around and believed.

The term "LAMBO" is strongly associated in the minds of consumers as indicating a particular brand of automobile. Try doing a Google search for "LAMBO" and then try to explain how it does not function in the relevant marketplace as a distinctive indicator of their goods.

Could be "because I wanted that one surname and I'm not made of money".

How many surnames does one have to own in order to keep their domain?

Well, that first point might be a good reason, but there are a lot of low value surnames running around. Again, why that one in particular? When did you become aware it was a surname? Did you have a friend or associate by that name? You just woke up one morning with an insatiable desire to have a surname which, coincidentally, is known around the world as a common short version of a famous and well-known trademark? The Google search results are outstandingly uniform waaaaaaay down the result list, but you figured "that's a great surname" instead.

That could be true. But outside of the wishful thinking echo chamber of a domain forum, very few people are going to believe that.

The basic question a UDRP panel is trying to answer is "why did this person register this domain name?" and to decide whether they were more likely motivated by the complainant's trademark, or whether it was something else. You simply can't ignore the fact that pretty much everyone knows that "LAMBO" is very strongly associated with a high-end car manufacturer. To move the needle in the other direction, you are going to need more than "it's my username on Namepros".

But it's not a matter of "how many surnames does one have to own". It's a matter of establishing a credible defense, using whatever evidence may be helpful. For example, I've done a lot of three- and four- letter domain defenses. If the respondent has a lot of other three- or four- letter domains, then that is helpful in establishing a reason to conclude that, yes, the domain name is consistent with a pattern of registration having nothing to do with a trademark.

On the "not made of money" thing, it is also helpful to explain how you got the domain name, and how much you paid for it. Did Mr. Lambeth sell it? For how much? What was the conversation like?

The "not made of money" thing is fine. How much did this one cost compared to other surnames? Great direction to go.

For example, if there was an email to the effect of "I really like the 'Lambo' surname and I want to buy your domain" that could be helpful, since it is a statement made at a time when there was no dispute.

For example, did someone register "CityCentre.com" because it refers to a common urban feature, or did they register it because it is a trademark claimed by a shopping center developer? Well....

https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2021-0591

"In 2001, the founder and CEO of the Respondent negotiated the purchase of a domain name reference site and news aggregator, <iGoldrush.com>. The former owner of the domain name had included various generic word and phrase domain names in the purchase as an apology for moving slow with the deal, thus offering the disputed domain name to the Respondent at no charge."

The email correspondence at the time of acquisition nailed down exactly why the respondent had the domain name.

So, it's not a matter of "how many other surnames" or some mechanical rule. It is a matter of credibility. Reality extends in three dimensions of space and one in time and encompasses a lot of facts. Facts don't exist in a vacuum isolated from the larger fabric of reality. If the overall reality is that the name was registered because it is a surname, then there are usually other facts which connect to support that version of reality. It's not a magic trick where you have to make sure the audience is focussed on one thing to the exclusion of everything else for the trick to work.

However, the respondent in this case seemed to want to ride a couple of horses at one time with "it's my nickname" as well. Again, that's a great defense, and is an absolute defense, but it is one that requires you show some evidence to that effect which exists independent of acquisition of the domain name. Otherwise, sure, I can register MicrosoftOffice.LOL and say it's my nickname too.

 

[MadAboutDomains]

First, that's not true. They have several:

Show attachment 220908

Second, as has been explained on Namepros many times, whether someone has allowed their trademark registration to lapse does not necessarily mean they have abandoned the underlying trademark. I might let my dog license expire, but that doesn't mean I don't have a dog.

People let their trademark registrations expire and go on using their trademark and maintaining their rights in their trademarks all of the time. Registration provides a lot of enforcement advantages, but it does not determine whether someone "has a trademark" any more than having a dog license determines whether someone "has a dog".

But, that said...

REGISTRATION IS NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE A TRADEMARK. I understand there are people who will never grasp "what is a trademark" and how that is not the same thing as "why is it desirable to register a trademark." I totally get that people think you "get a trademark" by filing a piece of paper with the government. But, what you will notice, is that you aren't going to find a single trademark attorney who is going to agree with that persistent and wrong belief among domainers who have principally learned misinformation about trademarks from other domainers.

It is unfortunate that a lot of misinformation about trademarks gets passed around and believed.

The term "LAMBO" is strongly associated in the minds of consumers as indicating a particular brand of automobile. Try doing a Google search for "LAMBO" and then try to explain how it does not function in the relevant marketplace as a distinctive indicator of their goods.



Well, that first point might be a good reason, but there are a lot of low value surnames running around. Again, why that one in particular? When did you become aware it was a surname? Did you have a friend or associate by that name? You just woke up one morning with an insatiable desire to have a surname which, coincidentally, is known around the world as a common short version of a famous and well-known trademark? The Google search results are outstandingly uniform waaaaaaay down the result list, but you figured "that's a great surname" instead.

That could be true. But outside of the wishful thinking echo chamber of a domain forum, very few people are going to believe that.

The basic question a UDRP panel is trying to answer is "why did this person register this domain name?" and to decide whether they were more likely motivated by the complainant's trademark, or whether it was something else. You simply can't ignore the fact that pretty much everyone knows that "LAMBO" is very strongly associated with a high-end car manufacturer. To move the needle in the other direction, you are going to need more than "it's my username on Namepros".

But it's not a matter of "how many surnames does one have to own". It's a matter of establishing a credible defense, using whatever evidence may be helpful. For example, I've done a lot of three- and four- letter domain defenses. If the respondent has a lot of other three- or four- letter domains, then that is helpful in establishing a reason to conclude that, yes, the domain name is consistent with a pattern of registration having nothing to do with a trademark.

On the "not made of money" thing, it is also helpful to explain how you got the domain name, and how much you paid for it. Did Mr. Lambeth sell it? For how much? What was the conversation like?

The "not made of money" thing is fine. How much did this one cost compared to other surnames? Great direction to go.

For example, if there was an email to the effect of "I really like the 'Lambo' surname and I want to buy your domain" that could be helpful, since it is a statement made at a time when there was no dispute.

For example, did someone register "CityCentre.com" because it refers to a common urban feature, or did they register it because it is a trademark claimed by a shopping center developer? Well....

https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2021-0591

"In 2001, the founder and CEO of the Respondent negotiated the purchase of a domain name reference site and news aggregator, <iGoldrush.com>. The former owner of the domain name had included various generic word and phrase domain names in the purchase as an apology for moving slow with the deal, thus offering the disputed domain name to the Respondent at no charge."

The email correspondence at the time of acquisition nailed down exactly why the respondent had the domain name.

So, it's not a matter of "how many other surnames" or some mechanical rule. It is a matter of credibility. Reality extends in three dimensions of space and one in time and encompasses a lot of facts. Facts don't exist in a vacuum isolated from the larger fabric of reality. If the overall reality is that the name was registered because it is a surname, then there are usually other facts which connect to support that version of reality. It's not a magic trick where you have to make sure the audience is focussed on one thing to the exclusion of everything else for the trick to work.

However, the respondent in this case seemed to want to ride a couple of horses at one time with "it's my nickname" as well. Again, that's a great defense, and is an absolute defense, but it is one that requires you show some evidence to that effect which exists independent of acquisition of the domain name. Otherwise, sure, I can register MicrosoftOffice.LOL and say it's my nickname too.

Valiant and accurate response as always.

I admit I didn't take the chance to look at the lambo trademarks myself which I should have done and would normally do. Do they use the mark, that's something I would be looking for... It's not protected if it isn't used as far as I'm aware. Also, is their trademark for LAMBO for t-shirts say or automobiles? If automobiles then just people calling it a "lambo" isn't the same as having a product with the mark on it...... Or is it? If it's for t-shirts for example, one can be excused for not knowing about their world famous t-shirt brand, for instance.

As for surnames etc, I find it interesting that if someone has a "pattern" of doing something that makes it legitimate, yet doing something legitimately for no reason at all as is ones God given right to do so doesn't. No I'm not saying that it's a God given right to infringe, however just wanting to do something now for a non-mark is legitimate even if you don't have a reason. One can legitimately register anything they like the sound of, once, with no reason and with no plans.

As mentioned previously, I would have established rights in it of my own and built a business on it, that way it would have been pretty hard to claim the registration wasn't legitimate. In this case saying it's a nickname on a forum is a rather weak defense.

 

[branding]

Again, thanks to all adding content to this thread. @jberryhill in special as you have a better understanding about how the law works than most of us.

What I'm getting from this thread, it was poorly defended and/or the panel made the right (lawful) decision given facts presented. I was rooting for the domain owner but find opposing views interesting.

I always like to think I have the basics down when it comes to TM law but I'm glad there are threads like this to reconfirm it's a good thing to hire a lawyer (expert) when push comes to shove.

Thanks.

 

[MadAboutDomains]

Also, is their trademark for LAMBO for t-shirts say or automobiles? If automobiles then just people calling it a "lambo" isn't the same as having a product with the mark on it...... Or is it? If it's for t-shirts for example, one can be excused for not knowing about their world famous t-shirt brand, for instance.

12. vehicles.

So I guess my questions stand. Does someone calling something something establish it as a trademark if they haven't produced a product with the name on it...? If they haven't produced a product with the name on it, promotional material etc do they have a trademark?

I'm not saying they haven't, but I'm posing questions to which I don't have the answers.

I have my suspicions that they haven't actually produced any firefighting equipment under the name Lambo, but I'm not saying that they haven't .

 

[branding]

Show attachment 220912

12. vehicles.

So I guess my questions stand. Does someone calling something something establish it as a trademark if they haven't produced a product with the name on it...? If they haven't produced a product with the name on it, promotional material etc do they have a trademark?

I'm not saying they haven't, but I'm posing questions to which I don't have the answers.

I have my suspicions that they haven't actually produced any firefighting equipment under the name Lambo, but I'm not saying that they haven't .

Did coca cola ever put out a product called a coke? I think the answer to your question is in this thread.

 

[DomainNature]

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.

I don't think we should rely much on google, from what I know Google is a beast of corporation that sides with similar kind as they are, but when it comes to small businesses or those who are against them, they will show you at the bottom of the bottoms in search results or none at all, as in my case.
Now if we search lambor, lambos or lamborg, we get similar results as to when searching Lambo. Why they not want to target those domains?

Also it does not matter much why one registers a domain name, everyone has the right to buy, sell or build a website on lambo,com or other domain, the current possessor is the current rightful owner, he decides what to do with it, if they want to use lambo,com they will have to buy it from current owner or take by force free of charge through UDRP grab scheme.
Why Lamborghini did not register this and other domains for brand protection? Because they did not care or were not interested. This shows us who is guilty of not owning the domain in question.
Why lambo,org shows adds related to cars why it is still parked, "because we want the lambo,com" to grab simple as that.
Let's pray to Gooodggle everyone, you have no idea what awaits google, facebook and other beasts.
I can destroy lamborghini if i wanted but don't want to waste my black magic energy for free.

 

[bmugford]

Here is another terrible decision, from today -

4505.com

https://udrp.adr.eu/adr/decisions/decision.php?dispute_id=104679

It was a single member panel, and a response was not filed which certainly did not help.

However, it was the same generic, overly broad "bad faith" arguments being used. Not much in specific.

Brad

 

[MadAboutDomains]

Did coca cola ever put out a product called a coke? I think the answer to your question is in this thread.

That's rather an absurd question/example. Yes, one of the brands is "coke". They also put it on their packaging separately exactly for the reason that they want to protect it, not to mention that they use the name "coke" for many other classes of products and own hundreds of trademarks on the word "coke". they have variants of Coke depending on the territory it is that they sell it in... Coke diet, Coke light.

Pepsi keep their trademark for "pepsi cola" on their packaging, seemingly on every can that they manufacture from what I can see, because they want the name on a product that they sell. I suppose without it it's hard to protect.

 

[branding]

I can destroy lamborghini if i wanted but don't want to waste my black magic energy for free.

https://lookcharms.com/wp-content/u...t-dtruite-a-tout-de-mme-trouv-un-acheteur.jpg

The plot thickens...

 

[jberryhill]

One can legitimately register anything they like the sound of, once, with no reason and with no plans.

That's true. Whether anyone else believes it, is a different question.

I have indeed encountered situations where I truly believed the domain registrant had registered an accused domain name in good faith, but that in the overall objective factual context it would be highly unlikely a panel would believe them.

Does someone calling something something establish it as a trademark if they haven't produced a product with the name on it...? If they haven't produced a product with the name on it, promotional material etc do they have a trademark?

Try this Google search:

"lambo" site:lamborghini.com

https://www.lamborghini.com/en-en/custom-solutions/customization

Or the possibility to choose from various types of materials, from luxurious Lambo Vintage semi aniline leathers embellished with other effects and developed together with leading Italian experts

https://www.lamborghini.com/en-en/news/lambo-v12-vision-gran-turismo-you-can-drive-it-too

The Lambo V12 Vision Gran Turismo has made its debut ahead of the World Finals of the 2019 FIA Certified Gran Turismo Championships taking place in Monte Carlo, Monaco this weekend, and will enable you to experience the ‘fun to drive’ in the iconic racing game Gran Turismo Sport for Sony PlayStation 4, where it will be virtually available from spring 2020.

https://www.lamborghini.com/en-en/news/innovation-takes-center-stage-lambo-day

INNOVATION TAKES CENTER STAGE AT "LAMBO DAY"

-----------

...and plenty more.

Again, it's worth pointing out that a lot of my observations are based on things that apparently were not of record in the materials before the panel. As the decision notes, it seems some of the panelists went off in search of facts on their own, and the dissenting panelist did not. Whether or not to independently look into the facts is, itself, a subject of disagreement among UDRP panelists.

To your general question, absent "marking" - i.e. use of the mark on or in connection with some goods or services, then the claim would not work out so well, such as in the "Crappy Tire" case linked above. Coca-Cola did adopt and use "coke" after people started calling that, as McDonald's started affirmatively using its nicknames. Another example, for old-timers in the US was the "Howard Johnson's" brand of restaurants and motels, which adopted the consumer-applied "Ho-Jo" as an additional mark:

Starting in 1929:

And adding "HOJO" in 1999:

 

[branding]

That's rather an absurd question. Yes, one of the brands is "coke". They also put it on their packaging separately exactly for the reason that they want to protect it, not to mention that they use the name "coke" for many other classes of products and own hundreds of trademarks on the word "coke".

Exactly my point... How did they arrive at the point that they decided they should be defending a TM under the brand 'coke'.

If you'd ask me that's rather absurd. The law seems to think differently.

 

[MadAboutDomains]

Exactly my point... How did they arrive at the point that they decided they should be defending a TM under the brand 'coke'.

If you'd ask me that's rather absurd. The law seems to think differently.

Because they called a product coke to begin with https://www.tmdn.org/tmview/#/tmview/detail/CA500000099247600

Registered 1942

 

[branding]

Because they called a product coke to begin with https://www.tmdn.org/tmview/#/tmview/detail/CA500000099247600

Registered 1942

Interesting... Another day, another thing learned. From my understanding it wasn't untill the general public started referring to CC as a coke.

Thanks.

 

[jberryhill]

I don't think we should rely much on google, from what I know Google is a beast of corporation that sides with similar kind as they are

Oh, come on. The fact that "Lambo" is a common reference to Lamborghini is not the consequence of some conspiracy by Google. That the algorithm reflects that overwhelming meaning of the term is a reflection of simple reality. People, including Lamborghini, have been calling them "Lambo" for as long as I can remember. Even if other cars have vertically-mounted door hinges, people have been calling them "Lambo doors" for at least as long as I was in grad school contemplating cheap fiberglass car mods.

Google is also one of the best resources for defending a domain name in circumstances where the word at issue is truly not strongly associated with any particular party. In most "dictionary word" cases, a Google search showing that the trademark claimant does not even show up in the first NN results is useful evidence of the primary significance of the term.

 

[MadAboutDomains]

Interesting... Another day, another thing learned. From my understanding it wasn't untill the general public started referring to CC as a coke.

Thanks.

Ok I'm beginning to question/look more into the origins of the Coke name myself now because I want to get it right. Not whether it's a trademark, because it is.... I thought it was an absurd example because it is such a common trademark that I felt it was undeniable.

Your assessment that it came about by people calling it 'coke' seems to be correct. It seems that Coca-cola took ownership of the name Coke after it was nicknamed. This advertisement of theirs saying that Coca-cola is also called Coke coincides with their 1942 registration of the mark:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1217574742036754438

but they do indeed have trademarks and their product is called and marked with 'coke' as previously mentioned.

When it comes to lambo, I can't seen the same level of markings for it to the degree that I can for Coke. The examples mentioned by Jberryhill are obviously useful, the company using the shortened version themselves in their materials, but the lack of markings on products does leave one to question what actually has the actual marking "lambo". It's not for me to adjudicate whether they use the mark on any products or their level of protection for the mark though honestly.

 

[jberryhill]

From my understanding it wasn't untill the general public started referring to CC as a coke.

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.