IT.COM

events I AM LAMBO

NameSilo
Watch

lambo.com

Top Member
Impact
5,551
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:
64
•••
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
I have collected a list of interesting UDRP cases over the years which provide beneficial rulings for domain name registrants. I will write an article at some point highlighting some of them.

Brad
 
43
•••
I guess so. It is not something I have really seen before.

It's absolutely normal. Take a look at three member panel cases, and notice how rarely they are turned around within the specified two weeks. Three member panels routinely grant themselves extensions for getting the decision back to WIPO. It is simply the mechanics of getting three otherwise busy professionals to arrange their schedules to discuss a case, draft a decision, circulate and mark up the draft, and then return it to WIPO. They always claim "exceptional circumstances" and never state what those circumstances are. Utterly normal.

Incidentally, the fact that no decision has been communicated to the parties is not unusual either. The deadline they gave themselves is for them to send their draft decision to WIPO, and not for the decision to be sent to the parties. After the panel sends their draft decision to WIPO, it is typically proofread and formatted for notification and web publication before it is sent to the parties. Because of the current high caseload, sometimes WIPO will have the decision for quite a number of days before it is communicated to the parties. It is then put on the mailing list a day after that. If you subscribe to the WIPO decision mailing list, you'll frequently notice that in instances where the decision includes a date of the decision, then that date will have passed quite a while before the decision is published.

The extension notice is simply being misunderstood as to what the panel has said they would do by the 28th. They extended the time for them to get the decision to WIPO. The panel doesn't send the decision to the parties in a UDRP proceeding, and doesn't control the timing of that.

For example, if you look at reza.com:

https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/pdf/2022/d2022-0945.pdf

The response due date was in April. The decision is dated June 28.

Concerning "they should have rejected the additional filing", again, it doesn't work that way. When a party files a supplement, it is forwarded to the panel. The panel will decide whether to consider it or not, but they don't make some sort of ruling on that decision in the course of the proceeding. The decision will eventually state whether they considered it or not. Most of the time, where the response has raised a substantive issue of some kind, then the panel will consider a supplement.

So, as far as the procedure is concerned, there's nothing unusual going on in this one.

In regard to the question and answer upthread about consulting with attorneys, to be clear, neither party to this dispute has ever contacted me concerning this dispute.

As far as the substance goes, this thread once again propagates a number of nonsense assumptions common in the domain community about trademarks. No, a trademark does not have to be registered to function as a mark. Unregistered marks work fine in a UDRP, provided adequate evidence of a mark is submitted. Likewise, trademarks do not need to be unique. There are multiple trademarks for lots of words, like "Delta" for an airline, faucets, tools, dental services, and a number of other things. In those sorts of circumstances, the complainant should provide some reason to believe that they were the intended target of the cybersquatting, but the mere fact of multiple concurrent TM users does not mean a UDRP cannot proceed. Put simply, everyone knows that "lambo" is a frequent and commonly used term to refer to Lamborghini. Spend a second with Google if you have any doubts about that.

A good example of this sort of thing is the nickname "McD's" for McDonalds. That was not a term they initially coined or used, but it was a term that consumers applied to the restaurant chain, and functionally it became a trademark long before McDonalds themselves started claiming it as one. The entire point of trademarks is about consumer association of a term with the origin of the goods and services. Domainers will remain hung up on irrelevant formalities, no matter how many times this sort of thing is pointed out.

On the respondent side, the case is pretty simple. It is my understanding that the respondent is a person whose surname is "Lambeth" and thus if the respondent has shown that they are commonly known by the nickname "Lambo" that should work fine, and render this to be a run of the mill case of that type. Shortened names, distinctive parts of corporate names, initials, and even nicknames have satisfied the "commonly known as" affirmative and complete defense under the Policy. (e.g. As stated in Penguin Books Limited V. The Katz Family And Anthony Katz, WIPO Case No. D2000-0204, held, in relation to Mr. Katz' nickname of "Penguin", “t is reasonable for someone to register a domain name based on a nickname […] and it follows that the Respondent had legitimate interests in that name.").

If, on the other hand, there has been some use of the domain name suggesting that the car company was intentionally targeted in some way, there is not an absolute right to use one's name - even if it is one's own name - for infringing purposes. For example, if your name is "Ford", you can't start a car company or use your name commercially for purposes relating to automobiles in a way that people might associate with the car company.

If this thread is any indication, then the only problem the response is likely to have is irrelevant peacock posturing over what seems to be a pretty simple case - a person named "Lambeth", whose nickname is "Lambo" registered his nickname as a domain name. That's not an unusual or remarkable situation. Likewise, it is not unusual or remarkable for Lamborghini not to be aware of those particular facts, and to proceed with a UDRP against a domain name corresponding to a nickname by which Lamborghini is commonly known among consumers. So, if those are the basic facts, then it should be a fairly simple case, but not an RDNH, provided the respondent did not shoot himself in the foot in some way through some historical misadventure.

For example, if we look at a 2017 capture of the page in question, it looked like this:

Screen Shot 2022-07-29 at 8.30.01 AM.png



Obviously, the PPC system believed that "Maserati", "Dodge" and the various Lamborghini links on the right side were relevant links to post, and domain registrants are normally held accountable for automated parking results even if they did not choose those links. The basic principle is that if it is your domain name, then you are responsible for what the name does.

Also, a panel could become suspicious of the registrant's motives in a "commonly known as" case where, yes, the domain name does correspond to the registrant's name or nickname, but the primary activity conducted by the registrant in relation to the domain name appears to be cashing in on the correspondence between their nickname and a well known mark.

So, the basic dynamic here is what is usually a solid defense - the respondent's apparently reasonable nickname based on his own surname - against the facts that (a) the domain name has been historically associated with automobile advertising including a direct competitor and (b) possible reasons to question the respondent's motivations, particularly if the response was as unduly combative and posturing as some of the commentary elsewhere.

It is likely, however, that the complainant did not pick up on the historical PPC targeting, which is a bonus for the defense side of the case.
 
Last edited:
32
•••
For people who like to point to the asking price as "bad faith" this UDRP just confirmed what I have said for years -
If you have the rights to own a domain, you can ask whatever price you want.

https://domaingang.com/domain-law/handyguy-com-wins-udrp-with-reverse-domain-name-hijacking-finding/

In the face of these facts, if Complainant wanted this domain name, it should have bought it. Indeed, it tried to buy it, but rejected Respondent’s $10,000 offer as exorbitant. Whether that price is too high or not, it is Respondent’s prerogative to set the price for a domain name in which it has rights. Complainant’s resort to the UDRP is a classic “Plan B” UDRP that reflects bad faith abuse of the UDRP by Complainant.
 
Last edited:
30
•••
PPC targeting is done automatically and if that is a basis to steal domains, every domainer is at risk of losing many names.

Yes, that is correct. It is a real risk of automated parking systems.

You know, WIPO publishes an overview of common UDRP issues, based on accumulated cases, so I don't understand your use of the word "if". It's not as if this is some obscure principle. It is right in what constitutes the FAQ of the UDRP, which is used as a reference in deciding these cases:

https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/#item35

3.5 Can third-party generated material “automatically” appearing on the website associated with a domain name form a basis for finding bad faith?​

Particularly with respect to “automatically” generated pay-per-click links, panels have held that a respondent cannot disclaim responsibility for content appearing on the website associated with its domain name (nor would such links ipso facto vest the respondent with rights or legitimate interests).

Neither the fact that such links are generated by a third party such as a registrar or auction platform (or their affiliate), nor the fact that the respondent itself may not have directly profited, would by itself prevent a finding of bad faith.

While a respondent cannot disclaim responsibility for links appearing on the website associated with its domain name, panels have found positive efforts by the respondent to avoid links which target the complainant’s mark (e.g., through “negative keywords”) to be a mitigating factor in assessing bad faith.

-----

As you will note at that link, WIPO provides a number of cases decided on that basic principle of UDRP disputes. It used to be that several of the parking companies provided targeting tools so that generic words could be hard-coded to maintain links relevant to the generic meaning of the keywords in the domain, for precisely this reason. Those sorts of tools have gone away because, frankly, the parking outfits merely seek to maximize their returns and no longer care if their customers lose their domain names.

Now, there are situations where panels have taken into account the relative strength and distinctiveness of the mark, or the prevalence of trademark-relevant PPC results.

For example in a dispute over "Tristan" which is a male first name and a relatively obscure mark for clothing, the panel found:

https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2007/d2007-1816.html

The Respondent has been using the Domain Name to link it to various parking pages featuring sponsored links through which the Respondent derives pay-per-click or referral income. If the sponsored links have a preponderance in any direction, it appears to be in the direction of the operas of Wagner and primarily, Tristan und Isolde. However, the spread of links is a wide one and not obviously fashion orientated, although for a time one of the many categories of links featured was a ‘clothing’ category.


Likewise in Outside.com:

https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2006/d2006-1275.html

Nor is the Panel persuaded that the presence of advertising links to alternative sources of OUTSIDE magazine subscriptions (among hundreds of unrelated links) implicates the Respondent’s knowledge of the Complainant’s marks and intent to confuse Internet users. The Respondent denies such knowledge and intent. There is no evidence in the record that casts doubt on the Respondent’s claim that the advertising links are served automatically by a third-party advertising feed provider using keyword search techniques rather than human selection. The automated advertising feed arrangements are such that it cannot be assumed that the Respondent requested such links or was even aware of them before receiving notice of this dispute. In the face of the Respondent’s denials and the automated nature of the advertising links, the Panel considers these particular links insufficient to prove the Respondent’s intent to mislead Internet users by means of the Domain Name itself.

In short, the Panel is unwilling to attribute bad faith to this search software. And it does not feel warranted in presuming bad faith on the part of a company using such software when the “keywords” it provides are merely dictionary words.


Those two cases, however, involved what is otherwise a non-distinctive male first name and a common dictionary word, so they were a little simpler.

This part of the discussion remains largely hypothetical, however, since we won't know until the decision issues whether the Complainant or the panel decided to make an issue of historical use of the domain name for PPC links relevant to the Complainant's mark.
 
Last edited:
22
•••
Re: Case No. D2022-1570
<lambo.com>
Notification of Panel Appointment


In accordance with Paragraph 6(f) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the Rules), you are hereby notified that an Administrative Panel ("Panel") has been appointed in the above-referenced case, consisting of the following persons:

Antony Gold
Presiding Panelist

Matthew S. Harris
Panelist

The Hon Neil Brown Q.C.
Panelist

In accordance with Rules, Paragraph 7, the above Panelists have submitted a Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence to the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center.

A copy of the relevant case file will shortly be transmitted to the Panel.

Absent exceptional circumstances, the Panel is required to forward its decision to us by July 16, 2022, in accordance with Rules, Paragraph 15.

Parties are reminded of the prohibition contained in Rules, Paragraph 8 against unilateral communications with the Panel or an individual Panelist.
 
21
•••
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:
21
•••
What is the status of the case now? Did the lambo domain owner appeal that ruling?
You'd need to read through the thread, I arrived late as well. But, everything todate is covered. A fascinating read. You can't really summarise it. Sure, there's lots of comment and filler but, easy to skip. I hope Lambo wins his court case
 
Last edited:
21
•••
I just receive email confirmation of Response acknowledgment seemingly.

Nonetheless, one could do without the runaround and "scare" after doing everything by the book. Switching case managers and having one email address for all not ideal.

I'll try and go back to resting now even as I was thrown off 😉

Update: Received return phone call, all is in order with apology.
 
Last edited:
20
•••
I am amazed at the treasure trove of Lambo you guys have posted here. Its used quite a bit more than even realized. I want @bmugford and FutureSensors in my corner if I get an unjustified UDRP 👍
I have dealt with my share of sense of entitlement claims before from companies like Sony, Edible Arrangements, and others.

Sony immediately backed down when I pushed back against their BS claim, but it took quite a while to break down Edible Arrangements sense of entitlement to the word "Edible" itself, which is clearly absurd.

The funny thing is at the same time I had another unrelated "Edible" company try to threaten me over the same domain. I CCed Edible Arrangements and told them to figure out who owns the term "Edible" and get back to me. :)

Brad
 
Last edited:
20
•••
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
 
Last edited:
20
•••
Can they just do that without a notification @bmugford ?
I guess so. It is not something I have really seen before.

Then again, they should have rejected the additional filing made by Lamborghini after the dispute.

You make your case, the other party responds.
UDRP is not a back and forth process.

This is a clear cut case of a sense of entitlement dispute lacking actual bad faith.
It should be an easy and straightforward decision.

When you have delays like this, rightly or wrongly, it is easy to imagine something nefarious going on behind the scenes.

Brad
 
Last edited:
19
•••
How do you justify your price if not related to the well known sport car brand?
How would you defend not just being a domain squatter if you've done nothing with the domain?
Here is the thing - you either have the right to own a domain or do not. If you do, you can ask any price you want as it is your rightful property.

Just asking a high price, absent anything else, is not bad faith.

Brad
 
Last edited:
18
•••
The logic of using price as evidence of bad faith is flawed. If the current owner has legitimate rights and/or there is no bad faith targeting, a buyer would have to pay what the price is or leave it. If the buyer is financially resourceful, the price can become high.

There is no use it or lose it with domains, thankfully. Squatting does not equal reselling domains.
Yes, if you have the right to own a domain you can price it however you want.

I read the complaint. It is really grasping at straws.
They don't really point out any specific incidents of bad faith.

In summary it boils down to -

1.) We are Lamborghini.

2.) Sure there is no direct evidence of bad faith, but the asking price is high, selling domains is bad, etc.

The arguments are just so generic because there is nothing specific to actually point to when it comes to bad faith.

3.) Give us the domain because we want it!!!!
 
18
•••
@jberryhill what is your hourly rate btw? ty

I've tried to get away from hourly rates and tend to do more flat rate work. I could say that my rate is a million dollars an hour, but since I get most jobs done in under a second, that works out to about $277 on a flat rate basis.

It can also depend on what I'm doing. If it's something interesting and fun, I take that into account. Once in a while, I take a case for free if it is particularly interesting.
 
18
•••
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/

Looking at UDRP decisions, Nick Gardner also appears to take his job seriously.

Gardner, Nick J.
St. Jean d'Aulps
France

Both of these panelists seem to almost always be on the common sense side when it comes to blatant overreach by entitled TM holders.

Brad
 
Last edited:
17
•••
Lambo, it's probably not a great idea to publicly discuss pending litigation publicly anyway. Of course, opposing counsel will ask interrogatories and deposition questions, but that's in a limited and controlled atmosphere. Outside of these limited inquiries, opposing counsel should not hear or see you speak on matters related to the case. You might be surprised at how statements can be twisted later and alternative interpretations of your words presented. Threads here can create fodder for depositions and trial testimony. It's just not a great idea.
 
17
•••
How do you justify your price if not related to the well known sport car brand?
How would you defend not just being a domain squatter if you've done nothing with the domain?
First of all, the term "squatter" is mis-used. Someone from America or anywhere else in the world can purchase a property and never use it. Why? It's an investment, whether to pass down to their children, or to flip in a good market. Somebody can't come from outside and say, "I want an apartment and you're not using it" or This is the location i want and you are here".

It's ignorant thinking you and others have and it needs to stop. A squatter is someone who has no legal rights to a property and yet they live in/on that property. This man legally owns Lambo.com, long before many of these companies using the term. And he can sell it for whatever price he wishes. If someone wants to build something in your neighborhood and that increases your property value then so be it.

But the core of the matter is this: He owns his domains name legally.
If you own coconut.com and 20 years later a phone company comes out and uses coconut as their brand.. do you think they should be able to take your name freely?

And if you own a valuable name right now and i open an LLC and get a trademark...should i come and take your valuable name freely?

They better stop playing around with people's assets.
 
16
•••
Particularly where the forum software allows you to change the username.


Show 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:
16
•••
Terrible decision. I’d have hired an attorney but that’s just me…
 
16
•••
Who filed the case certainly mattered.

If any of the many Lambo companies or several thousand people named "Lambo" around the world filed the case, they certainly would not have received the same treatment.

UDRP has (3) prongs that must be proven -

1.) Confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights

2.) Registrant has no legitimate reason to own domain.

3.) Being registered AND used in bad faith.

Even if you concede the first prong, on to the second prong.

No legitimate reason to own the domain.

Lamborghini does not have exclusive use to the term for every possible use. There are many others who use the term for various uses. The term can certainly be used in a non-infringing manner.

Now on to prong 3. Where is the actual bad faith when it comes to usage? That is required under UDRP language.

This is what Neil Brown called out in his long dissent.

What you have here are 2 panelists unfairly giving the benefit of doubt to a company, even though the facts of the case don't merit that outcome.

All they presented are very generic, broad, specious arguments.

Whether you like the OP or not does not change the facts of the case and should be no factor in the outcome.

Brad
If you search at OpenCorporates by the term Lambo you get 551companies that uses Lambo in their name. There are a lot of Lambo's around the world with jurisdiction:
 
16
•••
This case could be compared to Rolls Royce taking issue with "rolls", or Jaguar to "jag". Weak and nonsensical
 
Last edited:
16
•••
I did not look up the above case yet, but I note that you quoted the DISSENT.

He might do better putting up a website where the domain is used for legitimate purposes that have nothing to do with Lamborghini. For example...say someone had the domain ibm dot com and had maintained some kind of website that had absolutely nothing to do with the computer company and had been up for a long time, it is conceivable that such a person and such fair use could overcome an infringement claim.

In his case though he's merely posted lambo dot com FOR SALE and for a rather high price that implies that he is riding the coattails of Lamborghini and it therefore gets more sketchy as to whether this is fair use.

What I am saying, I suppose, is that this is one of those domains where he could get away with using it but perhaps not selling it, at least not selling it easily. If he does want to sell it, he could post the website along the lines of what I suggest and have something on there indicating that the domain is for sale.

Sorry but Lambo is just too close to the mark and is a common nickname for a Lamborghini.
 
Last edited:
16
•••
He has probably handled as many domain disputes as anyone.


To be clear, since for obvious reasons it's not worth posting here very frequently, and there may be some who do not know me, I have handled over 150 UDRP's (including a few for complainants) at WIPO alone:

https://www.dndisputes.com/search?text=berryhill

You may conduct a search of RDNH cases here, using my last name in the search box at the top of the table, and quickly find that I have obtained more RDNH rulings on behalf of domain registrants against UDRP complainants than anyone on the planet:

https://www.rdnh.com/rdnh-panels/

I'm not a domainer, and don't compete in the same trade against my own clients, who have included many of the best known and successful domainers of all time.

I responded primarily to point out, on the basis of having done hundreds of these things over the years, what is "normal" or "not normal" as far as procedural steps are concerned - i.e. (a) that extensions in three-member panel proceedings are common, and (b) the panel is aiming to get the decision to WIPO, where there is often a further brief delay before the case manager notifies the parties of the final, formatted decision.

The remarkable thing here is that on the casually-available facts, this case looks like it could be a probable win for the domain registrant, as I noted above. If competent evidence was submitted of the use of the nickname, and its rough correspondence to the apparent registrant's surname, then it could be a relatively simple win. Oddly, our friend here seems to be upset by the observation that he has a likely win on his hands, based on what appears to be an obvious nickname based on what appears to be his surname. To call pointing out the an apparent meritorious defense "doxing" seems to be a pretty bizarre reaction.

However, if the respondent's approach to arguing the case at WIPO is at all similar to the approach to discussing the case in this forum, then it can happen that panelists will look for a reason to decide the case in a manner consistent with their impression of the behavior of the parties. Additionally, the other thing that could get in the way of a probable respondent win in this case is whether the complainant competently researched the historical targeting of the name to subjects directly relevant to their mark.
 
Last edited:
15
•••
For anyone questioning the credentials of @jberryhill, you must be joking or simply new to the industry.

His initial post here is a billable hour, probably $500 worth of knowledge, for free. Take it in!
 
Last edited:
15
•••
Back