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

 

[Chris Hydrick]

**In 2018, @Acroplex wrote that ASZ.com has been stolen since 2007.
**In 2020, @JagG created a nP thread detailing his twitter spat with Lambo regarding ASZ.com

Does it matter (to the moniker argument) that Richard Blair was reporting his 2020 domain sales to nameBio as ASZ.com rather than Lambo.com?

Spoiler: Lambo V Samer: The ASZ.com nameBio dispute

https://www.namepros.com/threads/i-am-lambo-q-a-anything-with-me.1208769/#post-7954835

Lambo you sold almi.com for $117,500 and after week; sold buybuy.com for $95,000

i hate that Namebio lied about the venue;
So messed up, @Michael
Neither of them sold at ASZ.com;
Even if sold them; dont appreciate lie venue

Would you be open to edit Fake News “ASZ” and actually say where listed them & sold?
This blatant lying, even for promotion, is wrong

Where did sell @lambo.com?

newsmedia.com not open to this, no

If he managed the sales by himself, I see it normal to report the sales with the name of his company, or like he wants to be identified for that sale.

In fact now I remember other NP members reporting sales made through Afternic but placing their main website name on the sale at Namebio.
I don't see too much problem here, if they are who report the sale, not Afternic or Uniregistry, for example.

Winner!
we have someone who understands what a domain is and means!

First of all, he is the one that reported the venue, not me. What I received was an Escrow.com screenshot, which is not a venue, so the only thing I could have possibly done is swapped it with "Private". That would be a pretty rude thing to do when he took the time to report it with proof, to not let him get any credit.

When you report a sale you are free to list the venue as yourself, even if it happened at Afternic or elsewhere. This is because a sale at a marketplace is a collaboration between them and you, and ultimately you're the seller. They aren't reporting anything, so if you want to take all the credit that's your business. It has always been like that since the beginning of NameBio, and no amount of complaining or name-calling on your part is going to change that. Period.

He put me in an unusual situation because the site he listed as the venue was not, like is normally the case, a portfolio site. I figured he was probably trying to market that LLL.com and get some attention for it. While I don't think that is going to be a very effective use of the venue field, if that's what he wants to do I don't really care to stop him. Anyone with half a brain will look at that and realize it was a private deal.

 

[jberryhill]

if you downloaded those from PACER, you can do the world a favor and install the RECAP browser extension. RECAP is the mechanism that uploads docs to Courtlistener. It’s a crime that our court system charges a page fee for pdfs.

 

[jberryhill]

Does it matter (to the moniker argument) that Richard Blair was reporting his 2020 domain sales to nameBio as ASZ.com rather than Lambo.com?

Not sure, but there’s a footnote about the Archive.org wayback machine which may become significant later on.

 

[Chris Hydrick]

if you downloaded those from PACER, you can do the world a favor and install the RECAP browser extension. RECAP is the mechanism that uploads docs to Courtlistener.

Ahh... good info! I guess I assumed that info was autouploaded anytime somebody paid for it. I had downloaded the files from pacer prior to installing the RECAP browser extension, and it doesn't look like there's a way I can retoractively upload those using the RECAP extension. But will do for any future domain related queries!

It’s a crime that our court system charges a page fee for pdfs.

Probably a mix between a mechanism to prevent abuse, and an attempt to squeeze court costs? I agree it should be free, but at it's free if you're under $30 per quarter!

Not sure, but there’s a footnote about the Archive.org wayback machine which may become significant later on.

Forgive my noviceness, but where is the footnote you're referring to?

Wondering (since it apepars I'm unable to re-upload the PDFs to courtlistener) if there's a particular exhibit I should upload to nP, or if I should just upload everything I downloaded from the Statement of Facts, tand from exhibit A to U?

 

[Samer]

.

 

[Chris Hydrick]

Not sure, but there’s a footnote about the Archive.org wayback machine which may become significant later on.

Forgive my noviceness, but where is the footnote you're referring to?

Looks like you're referring to the footnote on Page 11 of the Summary Judgement? Which cites Exhibit(s) G-H.

SMF ¶ 14, Exs. G-H.15. It is undisputed that Mr. Blair has and continues to offer to sellthe disputed domain to third parties for financial gain (FactorVI).Factor VI looks at “the person’s offer to transfer, sell, or otherwise assign thedomain name to the mark owner or any third party for financial gain without having used,1 Lamborghini notes that the Court may take judicial notice of the Wayback machinepages because they “can be accurately and readily determined from sources whoseaccuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(1); see UL LLC v.Space Chariot Inc., 250 F. Supp. 3d 596, 604 n. 2 (C.D. Cal. 2017); Erickson v. NebraskaMach. Co., No. 15-cv-01147-JD, 2015 WL 4089849, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 6, 2015); seealso Pond Guy, Inc. v. Aquascape Designs, Inc., No. 13-13229, 2014 WL 2863871, at *4(E.D. Mich. June 24, 2014) (“As a resource the accuracy of which cannot reasonably bequestioned, the Internet Archive has been found to be an acceptable source for the takingof judicial notice.”); Martins v. 3PD, Inc., No. 11-11313-DPW, 2013 WL 1320454, at *16 n.8 (D. Mass. Mar. 28, 2013) (taking judicial notice of “the various historicalversions of [a] website available on the Internet Archive at[ ]Archive.org as facts readilydeterminable by resort to a source whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned”);Foreword Magazine, Inc. v. OverDrive, Inc., No. 1:10-cv-1144, 2011 WL 5169384, at *3(W.D. Mich. Oct. 31, 2011) (“[T]he federal courts have recognized that Internet archiveservices, although representing a relatively new source of information, have sufficientindicia of reliability to support introduction of their contents into evidence, subject tochallenge at trial for authenticity.”).

Exhibit G is an Archive.org screenshot showing Lambo.com forwarding to Lambo's AMA namePros thread.

Exhibit H is an Archive.org screenshot of Lambo's AMA namePros thread.

 

[Chris Hydrick]

[sic:ASZ.COM]*Not actual venue; this what seller identifies as.

How can that be if the seller identified as Lambo.com?

Is it similar to how one can identify as he/him on the weekdays, but she/her on the weekends?

ASZ leads to a for sale afternic lander and this seller is using “venue” in place of actual name at their discretion.

Attachment 1 in Exhibit B shows Lambo selling ASZ.com for $18,888 on 8-7-23.

 

[Chris Hydrick]

**In 2020, @JagG created a nP thread detailing his twitter spat with Lambo regarding ASZ.com

Ooops, that hyperlink erroneously contained a broken mail to link instead of the intended nP thread.

Correct link: https://www.namepros.com/threads/a-quick-due-diligence-saved-losing-25k.1203053/

Spoiler: Due Dilligence Preview