My quick read of the motion is that it's not very good.
I don't believe there is any rationale that would support this kind of motion to dismiss under 12(b)(6). That kind of motion - seeking dismissal for failure to state a claim - requires the court to assume that everything in the Complaint is true, and then taking it all as true, determine whether that would make out the legal claim the Plaintiff is making.
This motion misses the mark and, frankly, it is difficult to figure out their point. Essentially, they are saying that under a well-known precedent applicable in that circuit, a domain registrant is able to rely on the priority of the domain creation date. But Blair, they argue, is not the original registrant.
Well, so what? Blair's claim that his registration of the domain name is lawful does not hinge on when he is deemed to have registered the name or when the name is deemed to have been registered, re-registered, or anything else. Blair's claim is that he had a legitimate right to register a domain name which he alleges is identical to his nickname.
Now, sure, there may be factual or credibility problems with that later down the road, but for the purpose of a motion to dismiss, we accept the allegations of the Complaint as true.
For that reason, the motion to dismiss misses the mark by a lot. Brett Lewis is going to have a good time with this one.
Moving on, the motion further attempts to make a distinction between an express statutory provision relating to bad UDRP decisions, and a broader claim seeking declaratory judgment of non-infringement and non-cybersquatting. The motion argues that the specific statutory RDNH claim and the broader DJ claim are essentially the "same thing" and that they both must fall for the same reason. The problem as I see it is that those two counts of the Complaint are not the same legal claim. Sure, they are based on the same facts, but they are not asking for the same thing.
Of course, saying that both counts fail for the same reason, would require one to advance a good reason why at least one of them is not made out by the allegations of the Complaint. And that, Lamborghini didn't do.
So, without even seeing the excellent job that Brett Lewis and Michael Cilento will do with this meatball pitch, I'm calling this round for Blair. At the very worst, he might be given an opportunity to amend the Complaint, but the Lamborghini motion has a lot of empty rhetoric which feels like it is going somewhere, but fails to reach its destination.