UDRP Lambo.com: Following UDRP loss, Respondent files lawsuit against Lamborghini

[News]

Lamborghini 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...

Read More

 

[Mize]

To me, it boils down to harm, violating trust, and not wanting those to happen. I see it as Lamborghini is trying to take what does not belong to them (removing value that is outside of their right/trademark rights). If anyone has something that proves this to be incorrect, please share.

John has been successful in winning against big companies. Here, John and the registrant don’t get along well. I’m hoping John can set that to the side (not dismissing nicknames, pricing, credibility) but to put those relative to the problem that I see. Hopefully discussion benefits us all and reaches further than just domains.

 

[jberryhill]

@jberryhill Who should get the domain?

The winner.

 

[jberryhill]

The US District Court for the District of Arizona has denied Lamborghini's motion to dismiss the Lambo.com post-UDRP suit, and has further dismissed the domain registrant's motion for sanctions, stating:

"In response to Lamborghini’s motion to dismiss, Blair filed a motion for sanctions
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. Blair argues Lamborghini’s interpretation
of “domain name registrant” is sanctionable as evidenced by the fact that no other litigant
has ever argued a claim under § 1114 may only be brought by the initial domain name
registrant. Blair may be correct that Lamborghini’s argument has not been litigated before
but, in this case, that novelty does not merit sanctions.

The Ninth Circuit’s GoPets decision provided a sufficient basis for Lamborghini to
argue its proposed definition of “domain name registrant.” However, the reasoning in
GoPets regarding the need to interpret ACPA in line with traditional principles of property
rights significantly undercut Lamborghini’s position. In these circumstances, neither Blair
nor Lamborghini is entitled to sanctions."

I cannot provide a link to the decision at this time, since the Arizona PACER system seems to have gone sideways this morning. That said, it's a ten pager which painstakingly addresses what was a fairly silly argument.

However, as the District of Arizona more adamantly insists that priority in a domain name registration succeeds to a subsequent purchaser, one might want to reconsider the habitual practice of choosing the "registrar" as the location of the Mutual Jurisdiction in situations where one is filing a UDRP against a US resident outside of the Ninth Circuit who might be liable to litigate:

"Lamborghini’s proposed interpretation would also undercut a central rationale for
the result in GoPets. As mentioned, GoPets held it was important to interpret the term
“registration” in § 1125 to ensure domain names remained freely alienable. Thus, the
company that “reregistered” gopets.com was entitled to rely on the fact the GoPets mark
was not distinctive at the time of the initial registration. Holding otherwise would have
meant the initial registrant’s “rights in their domain name . . . would evaporate, at least
practically if not legally” because “no one would buy rights to a domain name that would
be rendered subject to a cybersquatting lawsuit upon the transfer.” Mehdiyev v. Qatar Nat’l
Tourism Council, 532 F. Supp. 3d 1065, 1071 (D. Colo. 2021) (interpreting GoPets)."

For those who watch legal dramas on television and are used to these things wrapping up in 50 minutes with time for some commercials, it is also worth observing that this case was filed in August 2022 and is approaching its first anniversary. What has been accomplished thus far is essentially nothing. Lamborghini tried to have the case dismissed, and was unsuccessful. Blair attempted to have Lamborghini sanctioned, and was unsuccessful.

So procedurally, the case is back at square one. Absent settlement, Lamborghini should proceed to finally answer the complaint (i.e. to admit or deny the various factual contentions of the complaint) and to allege counterclaims against Blair for cybersquatting. In the event that Lamborghini decides to pursue counterclaims, and there is no reason why they wouldn't, then Mr. Blair will be playing for real money, other than what has already been spent on legal fees to pursue the case, and cannot simply walk away from the table.

While it would have been nice to obtain sanctions, they are rare.

The substantive score thus far is a tie at Blair 1 (for defeating the motion to dismiss) - Lamborghini 1 (for winning the UDRP).

The bonus round awaits.

 

[jberryhill]

As noted above, Lamborghini's motion to dismiss is pretty far-fetched.

Accordingly, the plaintiff has filed a motion for sanctions.....

The Memorandum is here:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.azd.1307873/gov.uscourts.azd.1307873.26.3.pdf

In a nutshell, the Plaintiff is seeking an award of attorney's fees and costs incurred in dealing with the frivolous motion to dismiss.

 

[jberryhill]

Lamborghini has filed its response to the motion for sanctions, making what is quite possibly the dumbest argument ever made in an ACPA case:

https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/doc1/025026461474?caseid=1307873

Boiling it down, Lamborghini's position is that a "domain name registrant" is the first person who registers a domain name, and not any subsequent assignee.

 

[jberryhill]

Plaintiff's sur-reply to the defendant's response to plaintiff's motion for sanctions has been filed:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.azd.1307873/gov.uscourts.azd.1307873.28.0.pdf

"- no court has ever held that only the original registrant of a domain
name may seek declaratory relief under 15 U.S.C. 1114(2)(D)(v);

- in the 24 years since the enactment of the Anticybersquatting
Consumer Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(d) (“ACPA”), no party has
even argued that only the original registrant of a domain name may
seek declaratory relief under 15 U.S.C. 1114(2)(D)(v);

- it has long been settled that a respondent to a UDRP proceeding has
the right to file an action in federal court seeking a de novo review of
the lawfulness of the registration and use of a domain name"

Just backing up a moment procedurally, there are two things currently going on in the case:

1. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss - this is the motion in which Lamborghini argues that a buyer of a domain name is not a "registrant" of the domain name within the meaning of the applicable law.

2. Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions - this is the motion in which Blair argues that #1 is so stupid, that Lamborghini should have to pay the fees for dealing with it.

While these things are certainly entertaining, the state of play right now is an effort to keep the case from being dismissed. In all likelihood, the case will not be dismissed, and then, what are we.. a year into this from the UDRP?... the defendant will be required to file its answer and counterclaims in response to the complaint filed last August, absent the parties reaching a settlement of some kind.

In other words, resolution of the two pending motions is not likely to have much bearing on the overall outcome. These motions are simply a procedural skirmish along the way.

 

[twiki]

Fingers crossed, I hope the domain is won back.

 

[Embrand]

Lamborghini has filed its response to the motion for sanctions, making what is quite possibly the dumbest argument ever made in an ACPA case:

https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/doc1/025026461474?caseid=1307873

Show attachment 240511

Boiling it down, Lamborghini's position is that a "domain name registrant" is the first person who registers a domain name, and not any subsequent assignee.

Unbelievable. Do Lamborghini's lawyers get paid for this

 

[OmarVG]

Lesson: Dont mess with Big Companies Trademark Brands. Dont even try to be a Smart*ss, you will lose the domain, time and your money. No matter what are your Worthless Arguments. There is No opportunity to win a UDRP with a Global BIG Company. And the member "Lambo", must change his Namepros nickname too to avoid another Public Humiliation Lmao

There is no discussion, accept your LOSS and Stop Whining like a Brainless zombie LOL

 

[jberryhill]

My quick read of the motion is that it's not very good.

I don't believe there is any rationale that would support this kind of motion to dismiss under 12(b)(6). That kind of motion - seeking dismissal for failure to state a claim - requires the court to assume that everything in the Complaint is true, and then taking it all as true, determine whether that would make out the legal claim the Plaintiff is making.

This motion misses the mark and, frankly, it is difficult to figure out their point. Essentially, they are saying that under a well-known precedent applicable in that circuit, a domain registrant is able to rely on the priority of the domain creation date. But Blair, they argue, is not the original registrant.

Well, so what? Blair's claim that his registration of the domain name is lawful does not hinge on when he is deemed to have registered the name or when the name is deemed to have been registered, re-registered, or anything else. Blair's claim is that he had a legitimate right to register a domain name which he alleges is identical to his nickname.

Now, sure, there may be factual or credibility problems with that later down the road, but for the purpose of a motion to dismiss, we accept the allegations of the Complaint as true.

For that reason, the motion to dismiss misses the mark by a lot. Brett Lewis is going to have a good time with this one.

Moving on, the motion further attempts to make a distinction between an express statutory provision relating to bad UDRP decisions, and a broader claim seeking declaratory judgment of non-infringement and non-cybersquatting. The motion argues that the specific statutory RDNH claim and the broader DJ claim are essentially the "same thing" and that they both must fall for the same reason. The problem as I see it is that those two counts of the Complaint are not the same legal claim. Sure, they are based on the same facts, but they are not asking for the same thing.

Of course, saying that both counts fail for the same reason, would require one to advance a good reason why at least one of them is not made out by the allegations of the Complaint. And that, Lamborghini didn't do.

So, without even seeing the excellent job that Brett Lewis and Michael Cilento will do with this meatball pitch, I'm calling this round for Blair. At the very worst, he might be given an opportunity to amend the Complaint, but the Lamborghini motion has a lot of empty rhetoric which feels like it is going somewhere, but fails to reach its destination.

 

[jberryhill]

Maybe I should expand on that answer a bit.

The full decision on the motion to dismiss and sanctions is here:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64919795/blair-v-automobili-lamborghini-spa/

First, it's important to realize that most civil lawsuits settle. In all likelihood, there will be no winner. If the parties reach a private agreement of some kind, they will then file a dismissal of the case with the court and we will typically not know on what terms that may have happened. So, the most likely outcome is that whomever ends up with the domain name will be whomever the parties agree to have it. The settlement may be confidential, so we will not know its terms. Typically, if the parties agree on a transfer of the domain name, then the trademark claimant will likely insist that the domain registrant discontinue any use of the claimed mark.

Secondly, trademark disputes tend to be fact-intensive. On top of that, the ACPA hinges on intent. That can make it difficult to prevail on summary judgment - i.e. a pre-trial judgment in which all of the parties agree on the facts and so the disagreement is essentially about how the law applies to them - because it can be difficult to prove intent directly. One of the functions of juries is to assess credibility of witnesses, so a lot can depend on how a witness comes across to a jury.

The arguments along the lines of "there's a bunch of businesses/people using that name" are helpful, but do not constitute an entire defense. There can be a dozen different owners of a trademark for "EXAMPLE", but if a jury can infer on the evidence that I had one of them in particular in mind, then it doesn't really matter how many others there are. In other words, if I had intended to register the domain name with an idea that I would profit from one of those dozen trademark owners in particular, then that trademark owner has a cybersquatting claim against me.

But the notion that the domain name has value because it is multiply used, a surname, etc., aren't really relevant to what the stated reasons were for acquiring the name anyway. The defendant (Lamborghini) already has a wealth of direct statements from the plaintiff to use as evidence, since the UDRP was self-defended. The UDRP was defended on the basis of "Lambo" being a name by which the domain registrant is commonly known. As indicated in the UDRP decision:

---

The Respondent is known as “Lambo” on the Internet and in real life and has a history of dealing in, and developing, domain names. The Respondent has an established online footprint as “Lambo” and is known in online communities and in a personal capacity as “Lambo”. Specifically, “Lambo” is of repute and regard in NamePros, which is a million member online community, as well as on other online platforms, including the Darwinia Network and Evolution Land. The Respondent is a “Lamb of outlier generic aptitude and intelligence” and this is apparent from a logo and iconography for his online footprint.

In support of his contention that he is commonly known by the disputed domain name, the Respondent refers to “unsolicited organic testimonials”. These take the form of two posts from participants to an online chat on the NamePros platform which assert, in response to what appears to be a comment in relation to the Complaint, that the Respondent has been known as “Lambo” on the forum, for some time.

[...]

The disputed domain name has not been registered or used in bad faith; ““Lambo” is my name and “I am Lambo”“. Whilst the Complainant has sought to draw inferences from the fact that the disputed domain name has been offered for sale on third party platforms at varying prices, prospective buyers would have been unable to acquire the disputed domain name at those prices. “The beauty is in the eye of the beholder and as the outlier Lamb par excellence, is all but priceless to me. And that is all that matters”.

---

It's not clear how much or exactly what evidence was used by the Respondent to establish the "commonly known as" defense. Two of the three panelists did not find anything that suggested the Respondent having been known as "Lambo" prior to acquiring the domain name:

---

The Respondent’s evidence, however, does not shed any light on the specific period of time for which the Respondent has referred to himself as “Lambo” on the forum and, in particular on whether he did so prior to his acquisition of the disputed domain name or only after he acquired it. This is an important consideration because if, as the Complainant alleges, the Respondent had the Complainant in mind as a prospective purchaser of the disputed domain name as at the date of his acquisition of it, then calling himself “Lambo” on the forum may have been part of a strategy intended to suggest an interest on his part in the disputed domain name in the event of challenge by the Complainant. Furthermore, the Respondent has not provided any evidence at all to support his contentions that he is known by the name “Lambo” both in other online communities and “in real life”.

The Respondent has asserted also that he is a “Lamb of outlier generic aptitude and intelligence”. What this means, is unclear but, whatever meaning is intended by this contention, it is a statement made without any evidential support.

The evidence to support the assertion that the Respondent is commonly known as Lambo is therefore confined to the Respondent having called himself “Lambo” for an unknown period of time on the NamePros online community, with nothing to suggest that he had been calling himself “Lambo” on the forum prior to his acquisition of the disputed domain name, nor, in fact, does the Respondent even specifically assert that this was the case.

---

Obviously, it's one thing to have a nickname and then set off to obtain the domain name corresponding to that nickname, and it is another thing to acquire a domain name and then claim it as a nickname. One could justify any domain name on latter basis merely by registering SamsungElectronics.tld and then saying "it's my nickname."

But, the case was self-defended by someone who apparently thinks quite highly of himself, and didn't realize that the panelists might have wanted to see more in the way of pre-domain-acquisition evidence of use of the domain name. The dissenting panelist believed the Respondent, not represented by a lawyer, should have been given the opportunity to clarify whether the nickname preceded the domain name or the other way around. The dissenting Panelist would have requested more evidence:

---

In support, the Respondent has tendered in evidence some testimonials from acquaintances to the effect that he was known as Lambo, which go some way, but only some way, to verifying his position and although they are limited in number, he has certified that his submission is “complete and accurate.” His evidence was not entirely clear, as it did not have the professional gloss that was apparent from the Complainant’s case that was clearly prepared by a lawyer, which puts the Respondent at an obvious disadvantage. It therefore should be remembered that the Respondent is not represented by counsel and is opposed by obviously significant professional representation. There is an obligation on panels under Rule 10 to “ensure” that the parties are treated with equality and that each party has a fair opportunity to present its case, and this must be particularly so when a party is not represented.

...

The result is that the evidence has been left in an unsatisfactory state which is prejudicial to the Respondent but could so easily be rectified. It also potentially runs foul of the duty of the panel to ensure that the parties are treated equally and that each party is given a fair opportunity to present its case. The Respondent seems to this panelist to have been denied that opportunity, which compromises his due process rights.

---

Had that happened, things may have proceeded differently. However, old Namepros posts aren't going to be of much use, since changing your username on Namepros will change your name on all of your old posts. You can see that in action here:

So, while there is a "lambo.com" post from December 2017, you can see that where it is quoted later in the thread, the original username at that time is reflected in the quote block. Additionally, if you look at old threads on Archive.org, the then-current username is preserved:

But, in any event the Complaint, which was written and filed by an attorney, seems to put that question to bed:

It's hard to tell, absent access to the actual UDRP filings themselves, the centrality of the "commonly known as" defense in the UDRP proceeding. If the Response attempted to imply that the nickname existed before acquisition of the domain name, then that is something the defendant will use to undermine credibility.

One person you don't want to be in this thing is one of the folks who submitted "some testimonials from acquaintances," since their further testimony on how their testimonials came to be will be of interest.

In any event, the dissenting UDRP panelist's position was that the evidence was unclear, and insufficient to compel a result on behalf of the Complainant, who bears the burden of proving its case.

We in the peanut gallery have less access to any reliable evidence than the UDRP panel had. In a UDRP proceeding, there is no way to compel the production of evidence, but there certainly is in a court proceeding. So, however this thing moves forward, the parties and the court are ultimately going to have a lot more evidence on which to make decisions than the UDRP panel, or certainly anyone at Namepros.

 

[jberryhill]

What if I'd hold Rari.com, Benzo.com or Merc.com

Apparently, no significant group of consumers calls them that.

What about beamer.com

It is part of the Tucows Realnames portfolio, and can be used as a domain name for email if, for example, your surname is Beamer.

It would be a bad idea to use it for automobile related stuff, since that is a common reference in the automobile market to BMW, and has been adopted as a mark by them:

Just like Rolls and Jag.

 

[jberryhill]

1. lack of harm/abuse to Lamborghini from usage of the domain

That's not an element of a cybersquatting claim. The ACPA doesn't require a trademark owner to show any actual damages. The relevant law itself says that:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1117

(d) Statutory damages for violation of section 1125(d)(1)

In a case involving a violation of section 1125(d)(1) of this title, the plaintiff may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered by the trial court, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages in the amount of not less than $1,000 and not more than $100,000 per domain name, as the court considers just.

So, there's no evidence needed to "override" that observation, since the absence of actual damages does not matter. In fact, the statute says it does not matter.

2. domain has value to Lamborghini and others outside of any trademark rights

I mentioned that above.

(d) Cyberpiracy prevention

(1)
(A) A person shall be liable in a civil action by the owner of a mark, including a personal name which is protected as a mark under this section, if, without regard to the goods or services of the parties, that person—

(i)
has a bad faith intent to profit from that mark, including a personal name which is protected as a mark under this section; and

(ii)registers, traffics in, or uses a domain name that—

(I)
in the case of a mark that is distinctive at the time of registration of the domain name, is identical or confusingly similar to that mark;

(II)
in the case of a famous mark that is famous at the time of registration of the domain name, is identical or confusingly similar to or dilutive of that mark; or

(III)
is a trademark, word, or name protected by reason of section 706 of title 18 or section 220506 of title 36.

---

We're talking about cybersquatting here, not trademark infringement. The relevant question is "what was the intent of this person in registering this domain name?" Now, if the person says "I registered it because some random dude named Lambo might pay me $25M for it" then, sure, the outright distinctiveness of the term at issue is of some relevance. But, credibility on that point is going to factor in a lot more than a list of names and businesses.

The ACPA provides something of a shopping list of non-exclusive factors but, surprisingly, courts tend to focus on the ones actually listed:

(B)
(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).

Just run down the list. Of nine things to look at, the plaintiff is claiming two - (II and IX) - and one of those is sort of shaky since it arose after registration of the domain name, according to the plaintiff's own admission.

So you are hanging your hat on one of nine things, while there are several items on that list either not helping or affirmatively cutting the other way.

 

[BaileyUK]

Well I think we all acknowledge it was a brave move by member Lambo, takes some guts to face down the big boys. The cost of litigation would scare most away.

It's going to go down to the wire, as it usually does in this type of high stakes settlement, IF there is one. I'm guessing Lamborghini are desperate to settle this one, Now that the Lamb has bitten back. Far too much potential damage from an open court case. But that said it would be a real mud-slinger of a case.

I personally can't see 50mil, More like 10m plus all costs and disbursements. maybe a car thrown in (reluctantly) to sweeten the publicity and the fake smiles

 

[jberryhill]

Do Lamborghini's lawyers get paid for this

 

[jberryhill]

Lamborghini enters the chat...

 

[Samer]

I always liked Ferrari more. (NYSE: RACE)

 

[Mize]

From the UDRP: "There is no conceivable plausible actual or contemplated use for the disputed domain name."
This seems to show the mindset/position from which Lamborghini is coming from.

To me, that statement is false and I don't see how anyone could prove it true.

 

[jberryhill]

If Lambo could be swiped, why not Beamer?

Because how the domain name is being used matters, along with what sort of evidence demonstrates that.

Bosch is a major auto parts manufacturer. "Bosch" is also a last name. But there is a difference between saying "but it can be a lot of people's last name" and actually using the domain name for a purpose related to that fact:

Robert Bosch GmbH v. Domain Admin, Tucows.com Co
WIPO Case No. D2017-2549
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2017-2549

The Panel finds that (i) applies in this case. 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.

There are hundreds of last-name domain names that Tucows uses for the Realnames service. So, if you are going to argue "I registered the domain name because it is a surname", then it is fairly convincing to show that you have hundreds of other surnames registered and used for the same purpose. The use of surname domain names for an email service is a legitimate bona fide use which has been recognized in a lot of UDRP cases.

 

[MasterOfMyDomains]

I totally disagree with the decision.
But this business, is not clean. Front running, assets removed from registrants accts.
Some guy on dan with username name pro has couple my names listed.
Nothing surprise me. I hope lambo wins his law suit

 

[karmaco]

Wishing user Lambo all the best and a victory

 

[jberryhill]

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.azd.1307873/gov.uscourts.azd.1307873.12.0.pdf

IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the undersigned counsel, that Defendant shall file an Answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint on or before March 1, 2023

 

[jberryhill]

Lamborghini motion to dismiss filed:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.azd.1307873/gov.uscourts.azd.1307873.23.0.pdf

 

[jberryhill]

"Irreparable harm" is a legal term. It does not mean what you think it means.

What it means is that their claimed injury cannot be remedied by payment of monetary damages, but that it requires some form of equitable relief.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/irreparable_harm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreparable_injury

The two general forms of remedies a court can order are legal remedies and equitable remedies. Legal remedies are various forms of monetary damages that might be appropriate to the circumstances - i.e. ordering someone to pay money to someone else. Equitable remedies are things like a declaration of rights or title to property, ordering someone to do something or not to do something, ordering property to be surrendered or transferred, etc.. Lamborghini, remarkably, is not seeking monetary damages in this action, but are seeking either dismissal (which would result in transfer of the domain name due to the UDRP order) or an affirmative order of transferring the domain name.