Automobili Lamborghini moved a step closer to controlling Lambo.com after a federal appeals court upheld a lower court ruling in the automaker’s favor. The decision caps years of litigation that began after an administrative panel ordered the domain transferred and the registrant sued to stop it. The latest ruling clarifies how U.S. courts weigh bad faith in high profile nickname domains, and what that means for brands and investors.
The case highlights the interplay between the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy and the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act. It also shows how a procedural pause can stretch a dispute across multiple forums and years, even when the facts strongly favor a mark owner.
What The Appeals Court Affirmed
In early October 2025, a three judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment previously entered by the District of Arizona. The district court had concluded that the Lambo.com registrant acted with bad faith intent to profit from Lamborghini’s well known mark, satisfying the ACPA. The appellate panel agreed that the record supported the lower court’s view and left the judgment in place, opening the path to implement transfer once final procedural steps are complete.
Appellate affirmance matters in domain disputes because it removes uncertainty around factual findings and legal standards. Here, it signals that courts in the circuit will give considerable weight to the totality of the evidence when a domain obviously trades on a famous brand’s shorthand.
How The Dispute Reached Federal Court
The conflict began with a 2022 decision under the UDRP that ordered Lambo.com transferred to the automaker. That administrative result is often decisive, but it is not the end of the road. The registrant filed a federal lawsuit seeking to block the transfer and to obtain a declaratory judgment that the domain did not violate the ACPA. Lamborghini responded with counterclaims, and in 2024, the district court granted summary judgment for the company.
The appeal followed in 2025, focusing the dispute on whether the registrant’s conduct satisfied the statutory bad faith standard. Because the ACPA uses a nonexclusive set of factors, the courts reviewed the history of acquisition and use, any legitimate rights claimed by the registrant, and the extent to which the domain attempted to capitalize on the brand’s goodwill.
The Bad Faith Factors That Carried Weight
ACPA analysis often turns on context rather than any single fact. In this matter, the courts credited evidence that “Lambo” is closely associated with the Lamborghini brand in commerce and popular usage. They also found no credible business purpose independent of that association, and they noted usage patterns consistent with an effort to draw value from consumer recognition. The absence of a registrant trademark right and the nature of the domain’s content and monetization reinforced the conclusion.
While nickname domains sometimes support legitimate projects, the outcome shows how quickly the calculus changes when the mark is famous and the usage suggests brand adjacency. Documentation of independent plans, consistent brand-neutral content, and clear separation from a trademark owner’s field of use are key to avoiding an adverse inference.
Why A UDRP Win Was Only The First Step
Many observers assume that a UDRP order automatically moves a domain to the complainant. In practice, a timely court filing pauses the transfer and shifts the battleground to federal court, where the trademark owner must meet statutory requirements and evidentiary burdens. The standards are related but not identical. UDRP panels assess confusing similarity, rights or legitimate interests, and bad faith under policy rules, while courts apply the ACPA’s statutory test.
In the Lambo.com matter, Lamborghini converted its administrative win into a federal judgment by addressing each ACPA factor with detailed evidence. The appeals court’s affirmance validates that approach and strengthens the likelihood that the administrative decision will ultimately be implemented.
Implications For Investors And Brand Owners
For domain investors, the message is practical: nickname or abbreviation domains that intersect with famous marks face elevated risk, especially when traffic, content, or outreach suggests a connection to the brand. Maintaining contemporaneous records of independent business plans, avoiding suggestive content, and steering clear of implied affiliation can help demonstrate good faith if a dispute arises.
For brand owners, the ruling illustrates a clear playbook. Start with the UDRP to quickly halt harmful use and secure an administrative order, then be prepared to defend the result in federal court by building a robust record on fame, consumer association, and the registrant’s conduct. Coordinated evidence across both forums increases the likelihood of a durable outcome.
What Happens Next For Lambo.com
With the Ninth Circuit’s decision in place, the case returns to the district court framework for any remaining formalities. Unless the registrant secures a rehearing or undertakes another extraordinary step, the path is open for the registrar to complete the transfer once it receives appropriate documentation. Given the long-running nature of the dispute and the visibility of the brand, the domain’s move will be closely watched by counsel and the secondary market.
Beyond the immediate transfer, the decision will likely be cited in future disputes over nickname domains that echo famous marks. It underscores that courts will look past surface arguments and examine how a domain was acquired, presented, and monetized. For both sides of the market, that is a reminder to align strategy with the evidentiary realities of the ACPA.
