Agreed UX can be easily copied, but brands are a moat for a number of (granted, psychological) reasons:

1. Status symbols - my Lambo signifies that my disposable income is greater than your disposable income

2. Fan clubs - I buy Nikes because they do a better job at promoting great athleticism, and an iPhone to pay double for hardware from 3 years ago

3. Visibility bias - As a late adopter I use whatever the category leader is (i.e. ChatGPT = AI, Facebook = the Internet)

What you describe sounds more like market power resulting from a monopoly

I think that UX cannot always be easily copied.

Technology enables UX. When the underlying technology is commodity—which is often the case—it's easy for competitors to copy the UX. But sometimes UX arises from the tight marriage of design and proprietary technology.

Good UX also arises from good organization design and culture, which aren't easy to copy. Think about a good customer support experience where the first agent you talk with is empowered to solve your issue on the spot, or there's perfect handoff between agents where each one has full context of your customer issue so you don't have to repeat yourself.

It’s ironic that you chose Lamborghini and Nike because they are examples of brands that didn’t provide any appreciable moat for the first two decades of operation.

Their value proposition almost entirely relied on selling for cheaper than their more famous, at the time, competitors. e.g. Ferarri, Adidas, etc.

It’s only after many years of slowing building up credibility did the brand value start to matter.