Get your catchy domain at it.com

events IAM LAMBO

NameSilo

lambo.com

445.com
Impact
5,153
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.

lambo.png
 
Last edited:
56 0
•••
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.

FolioTeam

AMDB.tv
Impact
6,666
PPC targeting is done automatically and if that is a basis to steal domains, every domainer is at risk of losing many names. Most names were parked at some point or parked now and some have words in the domain that might be part of a TM and that part of the name might be causing the PPC algorithm to serve ads of a company with a TM. An example, someone owns BuyStaples.com and the PPC engine promotes office supplies shops, what does this prove?

Lamborghini is in my truthful opinion trying to rob this name. If he had DriveLamo, LamboAuto, it's a different story, but lambo by itself?
This is why it's not advisable to park names as you have no control whatsoever over what ADs that might display on those pages.
 

The Durfer

Wesley Sweatman
Impact
16,085
This is why it's not advisable to park names as you have no control whatsoever over what ADs that might display on those pages.
sales landing page is your best bet.
 

brainland

Established Member
Impact
82
1660039591935.png


Is the case eventually in your Favor? Which I believe to be. @lambo.com

If Yes, Warm Congrats to you bro... The domain is yours.
 

AEProgram

Top Contributor
Impact
5,979

jberryhill

Top Member
John Berryhill, Ph.d., Esq.
Impact
5,615
Screen Shot 2022-08-10 at 3.13.10 PM.png



https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/case.jsp?case_id=58326

The decision itself is not yet posted.

Harris is famous for "deducing" bad faith from the asking price, which is unfortunate. It may have taken a long time to get to a decision on this one simply because, strictly speaking, a credible "nickname" defense should have been sufficient. The majority likely came up with a rationale for suspicion of that defense. However, the way the "commonly known as" defense is stated in the UDRP should be an absolute defense.

Of course, we don't know what was in the Complaint or the Response, or what other materials the panel may have considered.

But, tough result for our friend here.
 
Last edited:

The decision was terrible; a complete miscarriage of justice based on the facts of the dispute.

It was based on dated and long debunked generic arguments like "He was asking too much", not specific evidence of bad faith.

All you have to do is read the blistering 8 page dissent by The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown QC. The dissent is basically longer than the decision itself and is a complete and thorough deconstruction of the case point by point, ending with -

"Use in bad faith

The Complainant’s case is strangely silent on the issue of use in bad faith which it must prove. Offering a domain name for sale, at any price, is not in bad faith when the domain name may be of interest and value to a wide variety of potential purchasers within any of its many meanings of which evidence has been given. That is the only use in question, as the Respondent has not used the domain name for anything else. Putting the domain name up for sale is the only use to which he has put the domain name and that use is entirely lawful, no matter what the price the seller asks.

The Complainant has thus not made out the case that the domain name was registered and/or used in bad faith. The Complaint should be dismissed for that reason in addition to the other reasons already given.

/The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown QC/ The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown QC Dissenting Panelist Date: August 2, 2022"
 

Attachments

  • Decision_D2022-1570.pdf
    336.9 KB · Views: 39
Last edited:

jberryhill

Top Member
John Berryhill, Ph.d., Esq.
Impact
5,615
Ah, okay, the registrant came up as "Richard Blair" and not "John Lambeth" as indicated in WHOIS history as recently as 2016.
 

jberryhill

Top Member
John Berryhill, Ph.d., Esq.
Impact
5,615
I just posted it.

Brad, I gather from this thread that you engage in communications with people involved in legal disputes, is that correct?

Because, if so, in the event that one of these things would ever proceed to litigation, those communications are not confidential and not privileged against discovery, and if the party does not produce those communications, then it would be obvious that they are not complying with their discovery obligations.

People are entitled to certain rights in relation to their communications with actual lawyers in the course of seeking and obtaining legal advice, but those rights (including the right to pursue malpractice claims) do not apply to communications with "some guy on a forum."
 

jberryhill

Top Member
John Berryhill, Ph.d., Esq.
Impact
5,615
The dissent is basically longer than the decision itself and is a complete and thorough deconstruction of the case point by point

Well, it demonstrates that the Complainant dropped the ball at several points. Since it is clear that the name changed hands from the previously-named registrant to the Respondent named in the document you posted, then the Complainant should have included these:

Screen Shot 2022-08-10 at 3.39.35 PM.png


One thing worth pointing out is that if you are going to rely on a "commonly known as" defense, then you have to supply more corroborating evidence than you might expect.

For example in Labe.com, simply being named "Labe" and proving beyond doubt that your name is Labe, are two different things:

https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/pdf/2022/d2022-1040.pdf

The Respondent has produced evidence that she is commonly known as “Ann Labe” or “Rada Ann Labe”, including screen prints of her Twitter Account, her entry in an online directory of real estate agents, her Arizona and California Real Estate licenses, and her biography on the website to which the disputed domain name has previously resolved, each of which records her name as “Ann Labe” or “Rada Ann Labe”.

Or in Windsor.com, then registered to Windsor Software Corporation:

https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2002/d2002-0839.html

In this case Respondent's name, as registered for the disputed domain name, is "Windsor Software Corporation." That name obviously includes the word, "windsor," which constitutes the full disputed domain name. It is possible for a deceptive registrant to concoct a phony business name under which to register a domain name with the intent to deceive a trademark holder or the general public as to the legitimacy of the registrant's claim to the domain name. However, in this case, the Panel finds it most improbable that Respondent has, among other things, formally incorporated under the name "Windsor Software Corporation" (Exhibit D of the Response), entered into a contract with NASDAQ under that name (Exhibit G of the Response), filed under that name with the Greater Washington Board of Trade (Exhibit F of the Response) and paid taxes to the IRS under that name (Exhibit J of the Response) all as a clever decade-long ruse to deceive and extort money from Complainant. No, the record establishes that Respondent is as it claims, a business operating under and commonly known by the name, "Windsor Software."

Simply showing that you've been using a handle on a domain forum while also not being clear about (a) how long you've been known by the name relative to (b) when did you acquire the domain name, is not going to be persuasive to a lot of panelists. It also helps to show that you were "commonly known as" the name in question BEFORE you acquired the domain name.

And, since the UDRP is focussed on "why did this person register this domain name" then being upfront about when and how you acquired the domain name is important. You are usually the only person who knows those facts, and being straightforward about them goes a long way toward establishing credibility.

The UDRP decision suggests the name was acquired in 2018 and, certainly, it was registered to "John Lambeth" as late as February 2018. The earliest it could have been acquired by the Respondent would be shortly after that, when the name went under privacy registration. So, if the idea is "it has long been my nickname" then it would seem to be pretty simple from the data at Namepros whether the nickname preceded the domain name acquisition, or whether it became a nickname after the fact, in order to justify the domain name registration.
 
Brad, I gather from this thread that you engage in communications with people involved in legal disputes, is that correct?

Because, if so, in the event that one of these things would ever proceed to litigation, those communications are not confidential and not privileged against discovery, and if the party does not produce those communications, then it would be obvious that they are not complying with their discovery obligations.

People are entitled to certain rights in relation to their communications with actual lawyers in the course of seeking and obtaining legal advice, but those rights (including the right to pursue malpractice claims) do not apply to communications with "some guy on a forum."
I am not sure I follow exactly. You are basically just explaining how the legal system works.

Brad
 
Does anyone have suggested panelists to nominate for the three-member Administrative Panel?

https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/panel/panelists.html
Brown Q.C., The Hon Neil
Greens List Barrister|Owen Dixon Chambers West
Melbourne, VIC

He is one of the most consistently thorough, fair panelists I have seen.

https://domaininvesting.com/5-with-the-honorable-neil-brown-q-udrp-panelist/
It's at least good to see that Neil Anthony Brown QC did not disappoint.

He must have taken quite a bit of time to write that impressive dissent.

It's a shame the other two panelists had to go out of their way to find "bad faith" based on very generic arguments, the same arguments that have been rejected in many UDRP in the past.

It's also a shame that UDRP results are so inconsistent. You have completely different interpretations leading to very different outcomes.

It really makes you question the credibility of a system where the outcomes are so unpredictable and erratic.

Brad
 
Last edited:

jberryhill

Top Member
John Berryhill, Ph.d., Esq.
Impact
5,615
Simply showing that you've been using a handle on a domain forum while also not being clear about (a) how long you've been known by the name relative to (b) when did you acquire the domain name, is not going to be persuasive to a lot of panelists

Particularly where the forum software allows you to change the username.


Screen Shot 2022-08-10 at 4.32.29 PM.png


So, definitely just relying on Namepros to establish a "commonly known as" could have used a little more help. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, if you can establish by credible evidence that you are "commonly known as" the domain name, that is an absolute defense.
 
Particularly where the forum software allows you to change the username.


View attachment 220840

So, definitely just relying on Namepros to establish a "commonly known as" could have used a little more help. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, if you can establish by credible evidence that you are "commonly known as" the domain name, that is an absolute defense.
Maybe so, but the burden is on the complainant to prove bad faith.

That is what Neil Brown called out in detail, where the majority seemed to just apply their own interpretation of bad faith. I think that interpretation is highly flawed relying far too much on "The asking price was too high" type arguments.

How often do you see dissenting opinions of that length and detail? He was pretty forceful in response to the largely specious bad faith claims. He clearly didn't even think a prima facie case was made.

I hope Lambo challenges this in an actual court.

Brad
 
Last edited:

jberryhill

Top Member
John Berryhill, Ph.d., Esq.
Impact
5,615
How often do you see dissenting opinions of that length and detail?

It's not unusual. Here's a recent list of decisions from WIPO with dissents.

 
Last edited:

jberryhill

Top Member
John Berryhill, Ph.d., Esq.
Impact
5,615
In any event, it will be interesting to see if this goes to court, or whether it is met with the Silence of the Lambo.
 

jberryhill

Top Member
John Berryhill, Ph.d., Esq.
Impact
5,615
I am not sure I follow exactly. You are basically just explaining how the legal system works.

I am explaining why consulting on a legal matter with someone who is not an attorney can be a really bad idea that can have negative consequences.
 

My point is not really that dissents are rare, though they are statistically not that common compared to the number of disputes.

My main point is you rarely see dissents of this length and detail. Most are a couple pages and not near this thorough.

I appreciate the attention to detail by Neil Brown. He is pretty much always an outstanding panelist with his fair and consistent application of the language.

Brad
 
I am explaining why consulting on a legal matter with someone who is not an attorney can be a really bad idea that can have negative consequences.
Fair enough, but luckily I am allowed to have an opinion especially when someone asks for it.

Brad
 

branding

Go orange.
Impact
7,718
F me... My condolences @lambo.com

Thanks for all input from @jberryhill and @bmugford .

Lots of valuable info in this thread. Sad news but worth the read.
 

jberryhill

Top Member
John Berryhill, Ph.d., Esq.
Impact
5,615
My point is not really that dissents are rare, though they are statistically not that common compared to the number of disputes.

Well, that's true of three member panel decisions generally, though, so you have to factor in that we are dealing with a minority of cases in which there could even be a dissent (barring a panelist with multiple personality disorder).

That said, since the UDRP was designed for 'clear cut' cases, you do have to wonder when one of the experts disagrees with the other two, whether the decision should be by a majority or by unanimity. Selecting a "majority" instead of a unanimous rule is not a design choice for which I've seen a justification. I guess it was just assumed it should work like a multi-judge panel, instead of a jury. But looking at the burden of proof and the qualifications of the panelists, it's a reasonable question whether a mere majority should be sufficient.
 
Well, that's true of three member panel decisions generally, though, so you have to factor in that we are dealing with a minority of cases in which there could even be a dissent (barring a panelist with multiple personality disorder).

That said, since the UDRP was designed for 'clear cut' cases, you do have to wonder when one of the experts disagrees with the other two, whether the decision should be by a majority or by unanimity. Selecting a "majority" instead of a unanimous rule is not a design choice for which I've seen a justification. I guess it was just assumed it should work like a multi-judge panel, instead of a jury. But looking at the burden of proof and the qualifications of the panelists, it's a reasonable question whether a mere majority should be sufficient.

Yes, that is a valid point. How "clear cut" is a case that requires an 8 page point-by-point dissent.

It is hard to believe on the same dispute panelists could come to such completely different conclusions, based on the same set of facts and language.

Brad
 
Last edited:

branding

Go orange.
Impact
7,718
In any event, it will be interesting to see if this goes to court, or whether it is met with the Silence of the Lambo.

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?

I mean, a court will reconsider all (and additional?) arguments from both sides but a decision made by a 3 member panel would definitely hold some weight.

If defended better in the first place that may have improved chances of fighting the decision in court?
 
Name Worth
Top down