Lamborghini family feud
Lamborghini is globally renowned as a manufacturer of exclusive sports cars.
The brand is inextricably linked to power, design and Italian flair. Less visible, however, is the fact that the Lamborghini name is used far more broadly. Within the Tonino Lamborghini group, the brand also appears on products such as coffee, energy drinks and alcoholic beverages. Lamborghini is therefore not only an automotive brand, but a wide-ranging lifestyle brand with registrations across multiple classes.
That is the outward appearance. Behind the glossy façade, however, lie internal tensions touching upon both family and commercial interests. Material that would not be out of place in an episode of Succession. The recent dispute over the Lamborghini trademark between Tonino Lamborghini S.p.A. and Tenuta Lamborghini S.r.l. Società Agricola can hardly be described otherwise than as a conflict over control of the Lamborghini name and image.
The defendant, Tenuta Lamborghini, operates a wine estate and markets wines and other alcoholic beverages under the Lamborghini name. The company recently filed a motion mark as a European Union trademark. The mark consists of a video showing a rotating bottle bearing the name Lamborghini with above a bull, flashing in various colours.
Tonino Lamborghini S.p.A. filed an opposition against this application. This is noteworthy, as the companies are connected within the wider network of Lamborghini-related entities. Moreover, this was not the first trademark filed by Tenuta Lamborghini incorporating the Lamborghini name.
Once Tonino Lamborghini S.p.A. demonstrated genuine use of the earlier marks relied upon, the outcome of the opposition was fairly straightforward. The signs were found to be similar and the opposition was upheld. Decisive in this assessment was the fact that both signs shared the word element LAMBORGHINI and a depiction of a bull. The dynamic nature of the applied-for video mark did not alter this conclusion.
A world-famous brand with multiple offshoots, rights holders and overlapping interests. One might expect intellectual property rights in such a structure to be tightly and centrally managed in order to prevent disputes of this kind. As this case shows, that is not always the case. Perhaps it is time for a series of its own.
Author: Arnaud Bos
Bio: Arnaud is trademark attorney and within Knijff responsible for the marketing & communication. Arnaud is specialist in the metaverse and music sectors and his client portfolio includes many upcoming and renowned bands. He keeps a close eye on the latest case law in the EU and will let you know when he sees remarkable applications.