(WESTLAW) A domain investor who paid $10,000 for the lambo.com domain name is appealing a federal judge’s decision to recognize the maker of Lamborghini luxury cars as its rightful holder.
Blair v. Automobili Lamborghini SpA, No. 22-cv-1439, notice of appeal filed (D. Ariz. Nov. 8, 2024).
Richard Blair filed a notice of appeal Nov. 8 in hopes the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will allow him to keep the domain after he was ordered twice to forfeit his investment.
He claimed that he bought lambo.com to add to his collection of over 100 domain names because it is only five letters long and can apply to a variety of goods and services.
Steve Levy, a seasoned trademark attorney and domain name dispute arbitrator who is not involved in the case, said Blair faces an “uphill battle,” in part because a Lamborghini car is commonly referred to as a “Lambo.”
“When putting on a defense, you’d better have a lot of solid documentation to back it up since hard evidence, and not just offering a good story, carry the day in domain name disputes,” Levy added.
Split decision
While lambo.com was first registered in 2000 by someone else, Blair purchased the domain in 2018 and registered it with Phoenix-based domain registrar NameSilo LLC, according to court records.
Automobili Lamborghini SpA filed a complaint with the World Intellectual Property Organization in April 2022, offering its 2008 European Union registration of a “Lambo” trademark as proof that the domain should belong to the company.
The WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ordered Blair to transfer the domain to the automaker. Automobili Lamborghini SpA v. Domain Adm’r, See privacyguardian.org/Blair, No. D2022-1570, 2022 WL 3359186 (WIPO Arb. Aug. 3, 2022).
Three WIPO panelists authored the decision, with one dissenter saying that Lamborghini did not appear to have any exclusive rights to the word “lambo.”
“Although some internet users may think [lambo.com] invokes the Lamborghini name, the domain could and in numerous cases already does, invoke a wide range of goods and services other than Lamborghini,” the dissent said.
The other panelists found that Blair had failed to offer a credible explanation for registering the domain other than to sell it to Lamborghini.
Blair, a British citizen living in California, then filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, seeking a judicial declaration that he did not violate the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1125(d).
‘Indirectly extortionate’
In response to Blair’s complaint, Lamborghini argued that the high prices he was seeking for the domain indicated he was using it in bad faith.
U.S. District Judge Roslyn O. Silver on Oct. 17 agreed and dismissed the suit. Blair v. Automobili Lamborghini SpA, No. 22-cv-1439, 2024 WL 4528164 (D. Ariz. Oct. 17, 2024).
She noted the increase in the sale price Blair was offering, from $1.1 million in 2020 to the current price of $75 million, and discounted Blair’s plans to develop a website, saying he had plenty of time to create a site since the 2018 purchase.
Blair said he never approached Lamborghini and raised the price “to discourage people from making offers.”
But the judge said Blair provided no explanation as to how listing a domain for any price discourages offers.
Furthermore, approaching Lamborghini directly was not required for a finding of bad faith, she said.
“As an experienced domain name investor, Blair would know better than to directly extort Lamborghini,” the judge said. “His conduct is indirectly extortionate because Lamborghini would have no other way to acquire the disputed domain besides forking over $75 million — or whatever ludicrous amount Blair decided on at any given day.”
Brett E. Lewis of Lewis & Lin LLC filed the appeal on Blair’s behalf.
Lauren Watt and Nicholas J. Nowak of Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox PLLC represent Lamborghini.
