This article misses several key facts. The C.S. Lewis Company tried to buy the domain from the Saville-Smiths, but they refused. Other facts in the case confirm that this was a money-making scheme, not a "birthday present." The Saville-Smiths also bought several domain names that violate copyright law at the same time Narnia.mobi was bought. These were parked at Sedo.com, a site that lists domain names for sale.
The C S Lewis Company does not sue everyone who uses "Narnia" in their domain name. The law states that legitimate use is only for teaching and informational purposes, with no profit intent. (NarniaWeb.com and NarniaFans.com are two examples of sites that played by the rules.) E-mail addresses do not qualify.
The WIPO decision can be read here: http://www.wipo.int/amc/...ml/2008/d2008-0821.html
Other Sources: http://arstechnica.com/n...es-11-year-old-cry.html
http://domainnamewire.co...-off-mobi-cybersquatter/
http://www.out-law.com/page-9303
http://www.reuters.com/a...s/idUSL4101872920080724

It's quite simple actually: If what the parents claim is true, then just hand over the domain with the condition that the kid gets his Narnia e-mail address.

But the question is: Would the parents have accepted it? I seriously doubt the kid was anything other than their excuse to bring a tear to the eyes of the court.

wow...

did I really just read this? Anyone who thinks this was right in anyway is an a******. They bought it fair and square. Narnia sucks anyway though.

wow...

Did you really just post that? Anyone who thinks you are right in anyway is an a******. they camped it and several other domains looking to make a quick buck and finally got taken to task for it. Narnia does, indeed, suck. But the kids seem to like it.

It was definitely mis-handled by C.S. Lewis' Estate. The Estate, however, does not necessarily share the Christian beliefs/morals that C.S. Lewis was adamant about.

On the flip-side...the kid's parents were cybersquatting, which is all-to-common...and easily leads to these stories.

I'm with joolz. I was ready to jump all over this until I fully read the official 'cybersquatting' guidelines. If the family was truly interested in allowing their child to have an '@narnia.mobi' email address, they should have done it at the same time they created the site. If it were my child, I would have already had a 'Coming soon' page up, and taken them to GoDaddy to setup their email account on their birthday. 20 months is definitely long enough.

As for the Estate's actions, it *was* harsh. Even if it was cybersquatting, time and effort was put into registering the site. Also, the Estate had plenty of time itself to register the site prior to September 22nd, 2006.

Considering C.S. Lewis is a self-proclaimed Christian, it seems obvious what recourse should have actually taken place. People can say 'it's just business' all the want, but actions like these just continue to put small 'black marks' on Christians/Christianity.

C.S. Lewis is dead.

His estate now handles all related IP. He had nothing to do with the lawsuit.

And Christians don't have to let people run roughshod over them. These "parents", from this article and others on the issue, have been doing this for a while. Someone finally took them to task for it. Why not a Christian?

"C.S. Lewis is dead.

His estate now handles all related IP. He had nothing to do with the lawsuit." - 100% agreed. However, shouldn't the Estate be trying to prevent doing things like this that make them look like the 'bad guy' (even though you and I both know they aren't) considering they now act in lieu of the dead Christian author?

"And Christians don't have to let people run roughshod over them...Why not a Christian?"

There's a difference between being "run roughshod over" and handling these ordeals in a Christian-like manner. Did the cybersquatting parents/child have it coming? Sure they did.

Did the C.S. Lewis Estate have to take them to court... Actually, yes. The parents refused several offers...in an apparent money-grubbing campaign for the highest $$$.

However, I believe that the Estate could have taken the 'higher ground' and compensated the family for the domain registration fees (purported to be about $140 US), and maybe even thrown in a free '@narnia.mobi' email address for the kid for life.

Again, this is simply what I feel is just one way that they could have reflected simply Biblical principles.

There's a difference between being "run roughshod over" and handling these ordeals in a Christian-like manner

Perhaps back in the loaves and fishes days. That difference has all but disappeared in today's world.

What would stop *anyone* from seeing them caving as "easy money"? Sure, they may be Christian, but hey also run a business.

Had the family not had a history, or at the very least had shown *some* decency, I would agree with you. I personally, after finding out their history and their attempts to cash in on *my* business would have not only taken the domain back, but also sued for punitive damages (to try and stop them from doing this to others).

But then, a model Christian I am not. ;)

Yeah, unfortunately this world is definitely "going to hell in a hand-basket", which most major religions predict.

I guess I really don't see it as easy money. The family got taken to court (which I'm for), and had the site turned over to the Estate (which was the right decision). If the Estate silently paid the family back the $140 US that the family paid to register the site, then technically they still lost - the time spent in the fight, and the money that could have been made in that same time. If I knew I was only going to get back the original amount I put in, I wouldn't even bother. However, I'm sure there are others out there that might go for it...

You have a solid idea about trying to prevent them from hurting others. Faith aside, your idea certainly could work.

I'm not certain, and it's not required to know, on your stance regarding Christianity. The Bible clearly defines justified anger and sinful anger. The Bible also preaches kindness, even in the light of obvious wrong-doing. When comparing reactions and various courses of action, which most exactly echoes the 'gist' of the Bible (primarily the 10 Commandments); leaving the family (regardless of how justifiable it is) without any reimbursement, or offering reimbursement for registration/transfer fees and a free email address?

It's fairly clear that the family was intentionally cybersquatting. How much more fun would it be for the Estate to come out "smelling like roses" by offering a generous repayment of the registration/transfer fees, and a single email address....all while watching a disgruntled set of 'get-rich-quick' scheming parents try to figure out what to do with an email address they could care less about? Heck, even build it into the terms that the email address is controlled by C.S. Lewis Estate, and cannot be sold or transferred...lol

The only reason it wasn't "easy money" was because the estate didn't cave and hand them bucketloads of it for what was rightfully theirs anyway.

(Not mentioned in this article, but elsewhere is that the family has a horde of likely infringing domain names and has "offered" to sell it back to the estate several times)

Basically, the family was trying to hold the estate ransom over the domain. (And several other companies/IP holders as well)

Again, if this were their only offense, or had they *not* tried to "sell" it back to them, then a heavy hand may have been too much. But, in this case, I believe it to be justified and perhaps even not quite heavy-handed enough.

They have basically left them alone to continue doing this to any number of other companies/IP holders. Who's to say a number of others haven't already given them the "soft handed" approach?

At some point it becomes a question of "gullible vs. smart" instead of "Christian vs. heathen".

What makes this horribly bad is these people are using their kid in a clear case of cyber-squating. I think they should not only have thier domain removed, but maybe their kid too.

They deserve to lose it since they didn't even give the kid an email address that they claimed was why they had it. They should be found in contempt as well.

Very sad!

Tosser. [tsk]

Heh. I just read this post AND the thread below.

At first skim of the above I thought "Gee thats a bit harsh of the estate".

After reading PC_Tool's posts which have explained the situation clearly I now understand C.S.Lewis's actions. Its just funny PC_Tool had to write the same thing so many times to get it through to everyone.

Love the interwebz!

I've read a number of the comments and don't see the Parents as squatters.

The kids birthday was in May. Perhaps the parents aren't very tech savvy and just were trying to figure out the best place to setup the kids email address?

All we know is Legal action started in May. Maybe it was before the childs birthday, so the parents didn't do anything with it yet and then started dealing with these legal issues, so at that point perhaps creating the email was the last thing on their mind.

Bottom line - we really don't know enough of the details to make a judgement and call them squatters. Maybe by the wording of the law they are, but I've registered a number of domains and have never read it. I have a few that I haven't even done much with yet as I just haven't had time.

"I've read a number of the comments and don't see the Parents as squatters."

That wasn't the only trademarked or otherwise misleading domain that they registered. (drwho.mobi, pentagaon.mobi, uspresident.mobi)

I've read a number of the comments and don't see the Parents as squatters.

Try reading the story. :)

20 months. That's almost 2 years. Nothing done.

Bottom line - 20 months? Not squatting? Seriously?

I'm changing my name to Mr. Narnia Google Microsoft, then I'll take all these bas****s to court.

Good luck with that. Let us know how it works out for you.

lol sounds fun. wish you the best of luck :P

Should we tell him about the guy who owned "mikerowesoft.com" now, or let him be surprised?

You're kidding, right?

Don't confuse his false bravado for actual intent.

This makes no sense. There are thousands of fan sites with the names of games, artists, etc in their titles and nobody sues them..even if those sites are idle for months on end. What gives? If I registered the domain Crysis2.org, is Crytek or whoever gonna come after me? I don't see how they have any such right.

Just like Fox couldn't sue the guy who registered 21st Century Fox, you may very well fall under the same protection. I suppose it depends on whether they ever intend to make a "Crysis2". God, I hope not...

Wow... this is -so- wrong.

I don't like the way that the domain market works, but for the estate of CS Lewis to have one this case establishes a precident that goes against years of domain registrations.

I do not see any reason why the estates of CS Lewis couldn't also sue someone with princecaspian@yahoo.com. While Yahoo! is only a service on the Internet, so is having an address with .mobi on the end.

I purchased a few .info domains and .net domains for musicians that I enjoy and run a few fan sites on some of them. I'm happy to have the address and it would be ridiculous if http://[artist].* defaulted to the artist.

In a perfect world, perhaps it would have always been this way. At the same time, when domain names cost $70/yr, the Internet was a much better place because people were less apt to squat with such high stakes.

cybersquatting

Check it.

Then get back to us.

Particularly, read carefully the bits about the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act and legal measures.

In a perfect world we wouldn't need laws like this because idiots like the parents above wouldn't be trying to game the system to make a quick buck off of someone elses creativity and effort.

"The Respondent asserts that the sole reason for registering the disputed domain name was to provide his son with an email address containing “Narnia” as a gift. According to the Respondent, his son is an enthusiastic fan of “The Chronicles of Narnia” books. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name shortly after the release of the first “Narnia” movie, at which time his son was nine years old. The Respondent alleges he decided to present his son with this gift on the event of his eleventh birthday on May 20, 2008, corresponding to the release of the second “Narnia” film in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“United Kingdom”)."

(http://www.wipo.int/amc/...ml/2008/d2008-0821.html)

Now had betanews presented that statement in the article I wouldnt have been rooting for the parents. It appears now that this guy was out for money as he registered various .mobi domains that had the potential of making money. Obviously when he registered this domain it was not an attempt to get his son the narnia.mobi email address that he claims.

You dudes make me sick, ya kill & maim at whim, and cheer with glee, it makes you hard and wet, yet ya no knowledge of life outside your little realms.

Dead on.

It was merely a poor and completely non-creative way to try and ransom popular culture. It'd be like trying to register Microsoft.mobi. Now Windows7.mobi....that might at least be somewhat defensible.

Again, what is the purpose of a trademark? Once you know that answer and if the parents don't provide competing products or services, they have every right to that domain name.

No, they don't.

It is trademarked and copyrighted protected. The *only* people with a right to that name is the estate of C.S. Lewis.

...and the *only* reason this became a legal issue is because the estate *had* to defend the trademark or risk losing it.

Sure, they could have been nicer about it..paid for the transfer, paid for the 20 months of "squatting fees", and even given the kid his email address....

But then again, trademark law is common knowledge and the parents would have to be absolute morons to have not known the name was the property of C.S Lewis estate. Taking pity n morons only makes more morons.

Disagree...it's not "intellectual property", like a copyright. The purpose of a trademark is to avoid consumer confusion by preventing competing businesses from using the name.

The works of Narnia are copyright protected. hence why I put that in there.

Also, trademarks are technically a form of IP, they are simply covered by different laws.

Regardless, cybersquatting is illegal.

I didn't read the family tried to sell the domain name...I must have missed that part of the article.

"technically a form..." - if we're talking technicalities, then the family has every right to the name as long as they don't offer competing goods and services under the "Narnia" name.

Bad faith was judged because they hadn't done *anything* with it....hence the "squatting" part of cybersquatting.

Are you intentionally trying to be obtuse about this?

and the time period to do "anything" with it?

Bottomline, the family has done nothing legally wrong and the ruling will get overturned in the U.S. when, hopefully, common sense prevails.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you :-)

Bottomline, the family has done nothing legally wrong

Incorrect.

The Anticyberquatting laws, and obviously the rules overseen by WIPO make it legally wrong.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you :-)

Oh, insults? How cute. Please excuse me while I shed a tear due to my hurt feelings.

Had he actually given the kid the email address and not just sat on the domain for 2 years I would have agreed with you. But PC_Tool is correct about what he did.

Insult? not at all - simply a response to your "insult".

What exactly is the time period for the family to do *anything*? They've done nothing wrong....yet.

Not that it matters but I agree with you 100% on this one.

Just suspicious about that obsession regarding IP rights in general...

Good lord. You are trying to be obtuse. I can think of no other reason you utterly refuse to understand the basic issue here: It's against the law.

They did *nothing* for 20 months. (That's almost 2 years, FYI)

This is called "cysbersquatting". There are laws against that.

Just suspicious about that obsession regarding IP rights in general...

*sigh*

It ain't my fault the US Gov has gone beyond the intent of laws that "protect" IP rights.

It is that intent I stand behind and defend. Not the nightmare it has become at the hands of certain "IP rights" organizations.

Don't blame the guy defending the intent for what it has become. ;)

Of course, if this were fully accurate (that they only wanted 'Narnia' in the domain portion of his email, they could have just purchased www.NarniaFans.mobi...wouldn\'t that suffice?

I agree with the ruling completely. Imagine if every trademark holder with a lucrative trademark had to go around paying tens of thousands to all these cyber squatters. I know most people on here will be thinking "Too bad for them! Let them pay." and so on, but that is why we have trademark laws in place, to prevent extortions like this. These people obviously registered the domain for the sole purpose of selling it back to the state of C.S. Lewis. It's such BS that they came up with this sob story about buying the domain for their son's birthday and they're trying to use it to play on everyone's sympathy. Sorry, it doesn't fly with me. Besides, who the hell buys an email address for their 11 year old son as a birthday present? Give me a break.

> Imagine if every trademark holder with a lucrative trademark had to go around paying tens of thousands to all these cyber squatters.

1. Why does the estate of CS Lewis need the .mobi extension?
2. This is what already happens, but usually on .com sites.
3. Imagine if Moby sued everyone with a .mobi url.

1.) Who cares? it's not even relevant if the *need* it or not.

2.) Such as? MSFT sued over the "lindows" name, ffs.

3.) Well...that would be ridiculous. See my response below to your other asinine "what if".

Seriously, if you have to stretch that far...it ain't worth it.

god this is such bs.

what is the point of any deadline at all for trademark holders to reserve their domains if they can do this? the deadline means nothing and apparently they have the rest of eternity to decide when they want it back.. i don't care if the kid never ever uses it and his main intent is to sell it back to the company to pay for college.. they missed the deadline which icann gave all trademark holders..

reminds me of when my tie rod needed to be replaced and i was too lazy to take my car in, and then it broke and caused even more damage costing me a ton more money than if i had just fixed the tie rod.. you snooze you lose.

The point of the deadline is so that a copyright holder does not have to spend 20 months and who knows how much in legal fees to get their trademark as a domain name. They could have saved themselves a heap of trouble and avoided dealing with these domain name trolls if they took advantage of the deadline.

It's merely a courtesy and has no real legal bearing.

It's not required since the rights to trademarked names already belong to the holders of that trademark.

The holders cannot possibly be expected to register every possible infringing domain name as that would costs thousands per year (imagine a more prolific author and the costs skyrocket even more).

They count on the good faith of others, to recognize their rights to the name and not attempt to infringe (or cash in) on their IP.

Failing that, their only option, aside form losing the trademark, is suing to get the infringing party to stop.

Really basic IP stuff, guys. Blame the stupid parents (squatters), not the folks forced to seek legal measures to take back what was rightfully theirs (by law) to begin with.

Agree and besides, isn't the intent of a trademark to keep others from using a name on similar or competing products or services? Is this family selling something or providing a service using the Narnia name? Sounds like a bunch of whining from the Lewis estate to me - "you snooze you lose".

> Really basic IP stuff, guys. Blame the stupid parents (squatters), not the folks forced to seek legal measures to take back what was rightfully theirs (by law) to begin with.

--

Thank God that you said this. I usually agree with everything you say on this site and I've been surprised at your posts on this subject until now.

Nothing more or less than I've said on this subject previously, just in different terms, but thanks for the compliment.....kind of. ;)

My 2 cents worth...

I dont give a rats a** about whether it is trademark violation etc... If the estate was so worried about their trademark they would NOT have let the domain name lapse as they did...

There are checks in place to protect even forgetful domain name owners, all those checks were ignored by the estate...

some person comes along, and in a moment of genius grabs up the name intent on selling it bacvk to the estate (also very legal and it happens all the time legally). they then let the estate know that they bought the domain and will sit parked on it . If the estate wants the domain back, they can have it for XX dollars (also very legal, as there are corporations who make bank doing JUST THAT).

Estate says man, I been had, we need to do something about this, so they instead of paying the money, sue..

If I were the kids parents I would appeal this decision, and if they lost, then I would sue ICANN for allowing this to become a rampant practice, and ask for 10% of all revenues made by all the companies who make a living doing this :)

If the estate was so worried about their trademark they would NOT have let the domain name lapse as they did...

1.) It never lapsed, it was new, they'd never "owned" it previously.

2.) All rights to the name already belong to them. This is common knowledge.

3.) Because of 2, they don't need to bother to register it. If they registered *every* possible infringing domain, it would costs thousands per year. Instead, since the rights to the names are already theirs, they count on the good faith of others not to attempt to infringe.

Failing that, they have to respond or risk losing the trademark.

Pretty easy stuff to understand, guys....

Its just difficult to agree with it.

How is that?

"Narnia" wouldn't even be in the global lexicon if it wasn't for them. Why would *anyone* else need it?

Why? So they can *try* and make a quick buck off of someone elses creativity and effort in making that name actually *worth* something.

I'm sorry but you make it sound as if C.S. Lewis created the word "Narnia" - that's hardly the case.

I said nothing of the sort. Didn't even imply it.

"Narnia" wouldn't even be in the global lexicon if it wasn't for them.

Not

"Narnia" wouldn't even exist as a word if it wasn't for them.

See the difference?

Sorry, replying to multiple posts - "All rights to the name already belong to them." They don't "own" the name, they have a trademark on it - nothing more. Again (sorry to be redundant), you're not looking at the purpose or intent of trademarking a word/name. I did say, "you make it sound as if", I understood your meaning.

If you understood my meaning, you wouldn't be making assumptions about it "sounding" like I mean something else, would you?

The works of C. S. Lewis are copyrighted. All rights to the world, the characters, and the names *do*, in fact, belong to the estate.

The article mentions trademark, which seems to be confusing a lot of folks here...

Terminology aside, the name belongs to them regardless. They do, in fact, own the names, the characters, and the story.

Names aside, cybersquatting is against the law and the rules (WIPO/ICANN), regardless of "intent".

well, did cs lewis ever offer to buy it back, i would tell them to f*** off as well

Right On!! :P

The name is already theirs. Why should they be forced to "buy" it back?

Cause they were stupid enough not to buy it when the originally had the change and then waited this long to go after them.

Why did the estate wait until May 2008?

Because according to IP laws...

They don't *have* to.

The name is already theirs.

But honestly - Narnia is a trademark of theirs, not narnia.mobi.

It's a dumb analogy, but if I named my 3rd child 'Narnia, would the estate call dibs?

But honestly - Narnia is a trademark of theirs, not narnia.mobi.
(emphasis added)

Seriously?

This is the result of your "thought" processes?

It's a dumb analogy, but if I named my 3rd child 'Narnia, would the estate call dibs?

I don't think anyone has ever been stupid enough to try something like that. Why would you do something like that? Just to spite their rights to the name? Just to torture your child?

Why is it people have to try and come up with lame "what if" scenarios like this to try and "end run" perfectly reasonable and understandable (by most) laws like this?

Hint: if it takes an incredibly lame "what-if?" like that to try and "prove" a point....it's not worth proving.

The family buy the domain clean.
like any other persona that can buy any domain.
C.S. Lewis had a grace period to reserve it.
He was lazy and didn't took it.

why would C.S. Lewis take a domain from the hands of a child because of his laziness?

The fact that C.S. Lewis has been dead for almost 45 years *might* have something to do with his laziness

What about his estate's laziness?

Who buys their 11 year old domain names for their birthday?

Now, without choosing sides here, BetaNews left out what I believe is a critical piece of info that can be found in the WIPO decision. Read for yourself and decide.

http://www.wipo.int/amc/...ml/2008/d2008-0821.html

"Between September 28 and 30, 2006, the Respondent also registered the following domain names: drwho.mobi, mi5.mobi, mi6.mobi, middleearth.mobi, spooks.mobi, tardis.mobi, ovaloffice.mobi, pentagon.mobi, primeminister.mobi, scottishparliament.mobi, thequeen.mobi, and uspresident.mobi. With the exception of middleearth.mobi all of these domain names resolve to parked websites provided by Sedo."

I don't think this is a clear cut case of parents registering one name for their kid after reading this.

Let's not jump into conclusions here ... maybe they have ANOTHER child who's a big fan of ... the Scottish Parliament? :P

Who the hell cares what else do they buy. They bought the domain absolutely legally. Why the f should they give it back?!

Because it's domain squatting, it's against the rules, and it's...wrong?

It's against what rules? Most registrars provide tools for squatting including Network Solutions and GoDaddy.

I don't think it's even morally wrong.

It's extremely lame and a bottom-feeder business in my opinion.

How about the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act?

"But when the WIPO was unable to find any evidence the family actually intended to create an e-mail address for their son, even after 20 months, it was forced to rule in the estate's favor, due to the family allegedly using the domain name in "bad faith.""

How is it bad faith?

Because they weren't intending to use it. They ere squatting. Hooping for a big payoff when the estate came to offer them a fortune for it.

Suckers.

At least the guy who registered 21st Century Fox knew enough to avoid *current* IP in hopes of cashing in if they decided to rename. (They didn't, but it was still a pretty clever idea)

True.

The parents should have known better. Copyright infringement. And they still hadn't created an email address for the kid? I'm guessing part of the birthday present was having an email address, period.

The parents should never have promised something they weren't supposed to get.

What if my last name is narnia? Huh? What now?

Your last name isn't Narnia. It seems to be Ferret. :)

The courts have handled this sort of case many times. Go search for your answer.

Big Biz message to Fan C. Kid even though you are the biggest fan out there, that you want everything narnia, harry potter, whatever, too bad Fan, we reserve the right to make money off that which you obtained, purchased fairly, but probably will never use in the future.

"The estate of C.S. Lewis, however, did not snap up the domain by the Sept. 22, 2006 deadline, and the Saville-Smith family purchased it four days later."

Tough "01110011 01101000 01101001 01110100" C.S. Lewis, you were too late!

If that was you or I, we would never have gotten that domain handed over to us.

"Attorneys claimed Saville-Smith infringed on the estate's trademark, along with other copyright issues. Saville-Smith countered by saying the family reserved the domain so their son could have an e-mail address with the @narnia.mobi domain as a birthday present for his 11th birthday, on May 20, 2008."

God, this is worse than the scrabulous issue by far. Infringement, hardly. Its SIX FREAKIN LETTERS.

Its just darn right rude to take that away from a little kid too.

"The estate of C.S. Lewis, however, did not snap up the domain by the Sept. 22, 2006 deadline, and the Saville-Smith family purchased it four days later."

And that was perfectly fair of them. I seriously hope they file an appeal.

They *never* made an email address. did you read the rest of the article?

They used that merely as a gambit to try and keep the domain. It failed.

God, blame the estate for protecting it's own interest....cute. Why not blame the idiot parents for setting this kid up like that? How stupid do you have to be to think you can hold on to something like that (or worse, hold it ransom over the estates head).

No that was before fully reading it :P

;)

That usually helps. (Been guilty of that myself...once or twice)

Honestly. Let the kid have his bday present. What harm could it possibly do to the Narnia name?

Go study up. That would be trademark dilution and if it's not nipped in the bud, the trademark could be lost.

Thats such BS

And you probably don't have one. :)

No I don't but accusing them of bad faith is a bunch of crap. :P

It was the WIPO that found no evidence their "birthday present" story was true. They were just domain squatters that had to come up with a legitimate sounding reason to want someone else's made up, copyrighted and trademarked, word as a domain.

They could have avoided that by...not squatting on it.

"Oh, we wanted to create an email address for him"

20 months later...no email address.

That is the load of crap. They were squatting, hoping to make a fortune on it. Nothing more, nothing less.

Well you are right about that.