Judge says domain owner is cybersquatting.
A judge has granted a motion for summary judgment in favor of carmaker Automobili Lamborghini SpA in a dispute over the domain name lambo.com.
Lamborghini won a dispute it filed under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) for the domain name in 2022. The owner of the domain filed a lawsuit to stay the decision.
The carmaker filed a motion for summary judgment in that suit, and the judge granted that motion in a decision (pdf) published today.
Richard Blair, who acquired the domain for $10,000 in 2018, had argued that he was known as “Lambo” and used that name as a username on the domain forum NamePros. But the court noted that he didn’t adopt that nickname until after acquiring the domain:
Blair argues he adopted the “Lambo” moniker before Lamborghini commenced the UDRP proceeding. This is immaterial. The fact that a party used the domain name as a nickname is only probative of good faith if the usage occurred prior to Plaintiff’s acquisition of the domain name…Blair fails to provide evidence that he adopted the moniker “Lambo” before purchasing the Disputed Domain.
Courts look at many factors under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA). The judge ruled that only two of them favored Blair: he has no history of cybersquatting and didn’t use misleading contact information.
In my mind this is a terrible judgement. The court cannot prove that Blair purchased the domain name in bad faith. The fact that he started to use the monicker ‘Lambo’ after purchasing the domain is immaterial. He is not infringing on any mark. If Lamborghini felt that the name is so crucial for them, why did they not then register it years and years ago when they registered Lamborghini.com? Did they make significant efforts to get the name before Blair did?
Prior to Blair having purchased the domain name, it was registered for a very long time to a person named “John Lambeth”. Looking at the prior registrant’s surname, it does not require much imagination to make and educated guess at what the historical circumstances may have been.
Get real, the case has bad faith all over it, obvious squat. Disgrace to the domain industry that this nonsense went to court.
This isn’t mentioned in the article, but lambo.com’s landing page advertises that it’s for sale (with a listed price of US$75,000). Does that strike you as the behavior of someone who purchased it for his personal use? To me, it seems an awful lot like domain squatting.
That would be 75 million
Many people with a five-letter name that is brandable, would want to sell it at the highest price possible. There is no crime against that, unless of course if they are infringing on a trademark.
Please tell me what gives Lamborgini the right to own the name ‘Lambo’? Was Lamborghini known as ‘Lambo’? (I really do not know). If so, why did they not try to acquire the name before; from the beginning?
Also, there are now thousands of domain extensions; would Lamborghini now own all the ‘lambo’ extensions? If not, what the dot com then?
And what about hashtags? What is the difference between a domain extension and a hashtag? They both direct you to online content. Would Lamborgini object to the use of #lambo?
What if a theatre in South Africa or New Zealand is called ‘The Lambo’? are they able to use the name Lambo in their ads?
I really would like to have answers to these questions.
corrrection: “If not, what the dot com then?” …. “If not, WHY the dot com then?”
This is dishonest, stupid, and indicative of a bad faith desire to favor and cater to the rich and powerful:
“The fact that a party used the domain name as a nickname is only probative of good faith if the usage occurred prior to Plaintiff’s acquisition of the domain name”
It makes no sense whatsoever, because it is spiritually and mentally or intellectually bankrupt and a lie. Personally, for example, as an end user I absolutely would often tend to only decide to use a name or nickname if I was first able to buy or register the corresponding .com, for instance. But I might also be willing to sell it, or not. That’s a no-brainer good faith personal activity policy bigger than a downtown big city office building.
Case in point, Liar, whoever you are who wrote that:
I “invented” my business name over two decades ago. When I was in the process of doing so, I had only one rule: the .com had to be available. After finally “inventing” one for which that was true, I then went with it. In the ensuing years it has become a significant phrase with significant use in the world. The subject matter of the phrase may hugely increase, and in fact that’s what the people running this world want and the direction things are going in.
Obviously this is big bank take little bank. However, it goes to show; have proof of use in some aspects prior to filing for any Mark and/or Domain.