{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-107015", "time_of_filling": "2024-11-04 15:07:42", "domain_names": [ "southdadelamborghini.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A. " ], "complainant_representative": "Dr. Jonas Jacobsen (HK2 Rechtsanwälte)", "respondent": [ "Thomas Roman" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "
\n
\n
\n
\n

The Complainant – commonly referred to as Lamborghini – is an Italian manufacturer of high- performance sports cars based in Sant'Agata Bolognese, Italy. The company was founded in 1963 by Ferruccio Lamborghini as Automobili Ferruccio Lamborghini. The vehicles of the Complainant belong to the world’s most famous luxury sports cars.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

The disputed domain name <southdadelamborghini.com> was registered on February 27, 2024.<\/span><\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "

The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name <<\/span>southdadelamborghini.com>.<\/span><\/p>", "no_response_filed": "

FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:<\/span><\/p>\n

COMPLAINANT:<\/b><\/p>\n

• The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the protected mark

According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name<\/span> <southdadelamborghini.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant ́s Lamborghini trademarks. <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n

The disputed domain name consists of two elements i) <\/span>the geographical prefix “southdade”, referring to a region in the southern Miami-Dade County in Florida; and ii) the Complainant’s well-known trademark Lamborghini.<\/span><\/p>\n

The disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of the Lamborghini trademark. According to the Complainant, it<\/span> has long been established under numerous UDRP decisions that where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the mere addition of other terms (whether geographical, descriptive, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element of the Policy (see WIPO Overview 3.0, Question 1.8).<\/span><\/p>\n

The prefix “southdade” does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trademarks. To the contrary, Internet users would expect goods and services related to Lamborghini cars of Lamborghini itself in the South Date region of Miami-Dade county. Internet users therefore will expect a website that is either operated or at least consented to by the Complainant, like the website lamborghinisouthdade.com run by an authorized dealer of the Complainant.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Also, the addition of the generic Top-Level Domains (gTLD) \".com\" does not add any distinctiveness to the disputed domain name. <\/span><\/p>\n

Therefore, the Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's Lamborghini trademark within the meaning of Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

• Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name<\/span><\/p>\n

According to the Complainant, t<\/span>he disputed domain name is not being used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The disputed domain name resolves to a website which displays a generic racing car, the title “South Dade Lamborghini” and a Subscribe option. According to its footer, this website is run by “South Dade Lamborghini”. <\/span>Nowhere on the parking page-similar website does the Respondent accurately and prominently discloses the registrant’s (non-existing) relationship with the Complainant.<\/p>\n

The Complainant has not found that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name or that it has any interest in the disputed domain name.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant also concludes that it <\/span>has not found any evidence that the Respondent has made any known legitimate, non-commercial use of the disputed domain name<\/span>. <\/p>\n

Therefore, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no right nor legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name<\/span>, within the meaning of the Paragraphs 4(a)(ii) and (4)(c) of the Policy.<\/p>\n

• The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n

The Complainant argues that by using the disputed domain name the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website.<\/span><\/p>\n

Panels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar (particularly domain names incorporating the trademark plus a descriptive term) to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) (section 3.1.4, WIPO Overview 3.0).<\/span><\/p>\n

According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name further endorses an assumption of affiliation between the Complainant and the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name is designed to imply that there is an affiliation between Complainant and the business “Lamborghini South Dade” even though no such affiliation exists. Consequently,<\/span> the disputed domain name is likely to confuse consumers to believe that it is connected to the Complainant.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n

The Complainant has also contacted the Respondent for an asking price via the anonymizing broker service of domain provider GoDaddy. The Respondent offered an asking price of USD 15,000 for the disputed domain name, by far exceeding its out of pocket-costs for the registration. The Complainant concludes that this conduct shows that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with the intent of selling it for profit by exploiting the Complainant’s goodwill in his trademarks.<\/span><\/p>\n

In addition, the Complainant’s use of its trademarks and business activities as a world-famous car manufacturer predates the registration of the disputed domain name by decades. According to the Complainant, the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant ́s trademarks when acquiring the disputed domain name, taking into account that the Respondent offered the disputed domain name for sale directly to Complainant.<\/span><\/p>\n

Finally, the Complainant provides that the disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website – the non- use of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding (section 3.3 WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0). In this case passive holding infers bad faith registration and use since the Complainant ́s trademarks are (i) very distinctive and of strong reputation, and (ii) the disputed domain name cannot be used in good faith.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Therefore, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith and its conduct falls within the meaning of Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.<\/p>\n

In conclusion, the Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it.<\/b><\/p>\n

RESPONDENT:<\/b><\/p>\n

No administratively compliant Response has been filed. <\/p>", "rights": "

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).<\/p>", "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).<\/p>", "bad_faith": "

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).<\/p>", "procedural_factors": "

The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.<\/p>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Barbora Donathová" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2024-12-04 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant <\/span>owns several national trademarks and international registrations for “Lamborghini” in numerous territories around the world, well identified in the Complaint.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant enjoys a high degree of renown worldwide. <\/span>The Complainant’s group promotes Lamborghini cars in different languages worldwide on the internet, inter alia at www.lamborghini.com<\/a>. Authorized dealers of the Complainant promote Lamborghini cars worldwide also via authorized additional websites with accordingly licensed trademark uses targeting specific local markets, e.g. under https:\/\/www.lamborghinisouthdade.com<\/a>.<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "southdadelamborghini.com": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }