A federal appeals court has sided with Lamborghini in a fight over the lambo.com domain name. In a memo on October 9, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A., holding that the registrant of lambo.com acted with the requisite “bad faith intent to profit” under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (“ACPA”). The memo leaves intact a district court ruling against domain owner Richard Blair and underscores how famous marks and eye-popping sale listings can tip the statutory factors decisively for brand owners.
The Background in Brief: The case got its start in 2022 when Richard Blair filed suit against Lamborghini, seeking a declaration that his use of lambo.com did not constitute an unlawful use of Lamborghini’s trademark under the ACPA. The law prohibits “cybersquatters” from registering internet domain names that are identical or confusingly similar to registered marks. Arguing that Blair was trading on the fame of its LAMBORGHINI mark, Lamborghini won summary judgment in the district court on the statute’s “bad-faith intent to profit” element.
On appeal, Blair challenged the court’s bad-faith finding, making the sole issue before the appeals court whether Blair had the requisite bad faith intent.
The Bad-Faith Factors
Setting the stage in its memo, the Ninth Circuit noted that when determining whether a defendant to a cybersquatting claim exhibited a bad faith intent to profit from a mark, courts may consider a set of nine non-exhaustive statutory factors. “But the most important grounds for finding bad faith are ‘the unique circumstances of the case, which do not fit neatly into the specific factors enumerated by Congress,’” the court stated.
The panel agreed with the district court that the most salient factors weighed for Lamborghini:
> No IP rights in “lambo.” Blair conceded he had no trademark or other IP rights in the term.
> Not Blair’s personal name. He began using “Lambo” as a moniker only after acquiring the domain – undercutting any claim to a preexisting, good-faith identity use.
> No bona fide offering / noncommercial use. The scant development of the site failed to show prior bona fide use or fair/noncommercial use.
> Attempt to sell for massive profit. Blair listed lambo.com for $75 million, which the district court characterized as “indirectly extortionate” – a classic sign of monetizing the brand owner’s goodwill rather than any legitimate project.
> Fame/distinctiveness. The court had “no doubt” the LAMBORGHINI mark is distinctive and famous, widely recognized by the public in connection with Lamborghini’s luxury automobiles.
A few factors cut the other way, with the court stating that Lamborghini does not claim that Blair provided “material and misleading false contact information” when registering <lambo.com>, nor does it contest that he provided “accurate contact information” throughout his ownership of the domain name. At the same time, the record does not demonstrate that Blair has a history of cybersquatting, for instance by holding “multiple domain names” that are “identical or confusingly similar” to or “dilutive” of other marks, the court held.
Still, the court held that those factors did not outweigh the showing of bad faith and thus, the district court correctly concluded that Blair exhibited a “bad faith intent to profit” from Lamborghini’s mark for the purposes of the ACPA and did not err in granting summary judgment to Lamborghini.
The Impact Beyond Supercars
Short-form brand nicknames can serve as valuable indicators of course, and “Lambo” is a well-known shorthand for Lamborghini. So, pairing such a nickname with a .com domain will be scrutinized like the house mark itself when fame is established. Sky-high sale listings can also backfire; an eight-figure “for sale” tag, without credible independent use plans, reads as ransom, not investment – especially against a famous mark.
Post-hoc personal branding will not rescue a registrant either, because adopting a nickname after registration (as Blair did here, referring to himself as “Lambo” after acquiring lambo.com) rarely helps – courts look for bona fide, preexisting use and intent. And even though the court’s memo is not-for-publication does not mean it is not influential – its reasoning tracks longstanding ACPA case law and may be persuasive in negotiations and early motion practice.
The case is Blair v. Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A., No. 24-6839 (9th Cir.).
Share
