Lambo.com Cybersquatting Case Lamborghini Wins Domain Battle – Key Lessons for Brands and Investors

Imagine acquiring the premium domain Lambo.com for $10,000, listing it for an ambitious $75 million—only to have Lamborghini secure it without compensation following decisive WIPO and U.S. court rulings on cybersquatting. This recent landmark case exemplifies the precarious intersection of domain investment and trademark protection, where Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A. prevailed decisively. For brand stewards and investors, it offers authoritative insights into safeguarding intellectual property in the digital realm.

What Is Lambo.com and How Did It Start?

“Lambo” is a widely used nickname for Lamborghini and its supercars, used by fans, media, and the public for years.

In 2018, an Arizona‑based domain investor, Richard Blair, bought the domain name Lambo.com for about USD 10,000 and added it to a portfolio of over 130 domains.

After buying it, he started listing Lambo.com for sale at very high prices, reportedly going as far as asking USD 75 million.

Lamborghini, which owns trademarks for both LAMBORGHINI and LAMBO, saw this as someone trying to profit from its name and reputation.

What Did WIPO Decide About Lambo.com?

Lamborghini filed a complaint with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) under the UDRP (Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy), a quick, specialist process for resolving domain name disputes. ​ Lamborghini argued that “Lambo” was effectively another way of referring to its cars and brand, so using Lambo.com without permission was misleading. ​

A majority of the WIPO panel agreed that the domain name was confusingly similar to Lamborghini’s trademarks and that the investor did not have any real, independent right to use the name “Lambo.” ​ The panel decided that the domain was registered and used in bad faith and ordered that Lambo.com be transferred to Lamborghini.

What Did the U.S. Court Say?

The story did not end at WIPO. After losing there, the domain owner sued Lamborghini in U.S. federal court in Arizona, asking the court to overturn the result and to rule that he was not a cybersquatter.

Lamborghini responded by bringing its own claim under U.S. law, the Anti‑Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA), which targets bad‑faith registration of domains that match or imitate trademarks.

The judge ruled in Lamborghini’s favor, finding that the domain owner had acted in bad faith and that his story about using “Lambo” as his own brand did not hold up.

Among other things, the court noted the lack of any genuine business built around “Lambo,” the extremely high asking price for the domain, and the way the dispute was used to generate attention rather than provide a real service.

As a result, the court ordered that Lambo.com be handed over to Lamborghini, with no compensation at all to the former owner.

What Can Brand Owners Learn?

​For brand owners, Lambo.com is a reminder that protecting a brand is not just about the exact company name or logo.

It is also about how people actually talk about the brand in the real world.

• Nicknames and short forms matter

  If customers and media commonly use a nickname—like “Lambo” for Lamborghini—that nickname can carry legal weight and be protected in domain disputes.

  
  

• Monitoring and, where appropriate, registering those nicknames can make it easier to act quickly when someone registers a matching domain.

• Be proactive with domains

  Having trademark rights and evidence of public association gave Lamborghini strong footing in both WIPO and court. A smart strategy includes securing obvious domains and regularly checking for new registrations that are clearly tied to your brand.

  
  

• Use UDRP and local courts together

  The Lambo.com case shows how UDRP can be the first step, with courts then confirming and enforcing that outcome under local law when needed. This combination can be powerful where the domain owner decides to fight back after a UDRP loss.

What Should Domain Investors Take Away?

For domain investors, Lambo.com is a warning that certain “opportunities” are more risk than reward.

If a domain looks like it obviously refers to a famous brand, it is not a safe, neutral investment.

• Famous brands are off‑limits

  Buying a domain that matches a well‑known brand name or its widely used nickname, and then asking for a huge price, is likely to be viewed as cybersquatting. Claims that the word is “generic” or that it’s your new personal brand need strong evidence and usually fail when the public clearly links the term to a famous company.

• Non‑use can still hurt you

  Simply parking the domain, redirecting it, or using it only to talk about the dispute might could be treated as bad faith rather than a neutral holding. Courts and panels consider not just what a site shows today but the overall pattern of behavior and intent.

• Eye‑catching price tags attract legal attention

  Very high asking prices, especially when the only realistic buyer is the brand owner or its rivals, can be used as evidence that the domain was acquired to profit from someone else’s name. In the Lambo.com case, the jump from a five‑figure purchase to a multi‑million‑dollar asking price played directly into the bad‑faith finding.

For businesses and individuals alike, the message is simple: domains sit at the intersection of branding, reputation, and law.

Before registering or buying a name that looks or sounds like a famous brand—or its nickname—getting proper IP advice can make the difference between a smart investment and a very public, very costly lesson.