Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Friday, 5th September 2008

Free Capercaillie CD

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Once upon a time in Narnia, a little Scots boy lost a battle with corporate lawyers …



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 24 July 2008
AN 11-YEAR-OLD boy was last night ordered by a court to hand back his birthday present – a Narnia-based website address – after one of the biggest legal firms in the world said it belonged to its multi-millionaire client.
Comrie Saville-Smith, from Edinburgh, an avid fan of the CS Lewis novels, was given the domain name narnia.mobi as a gift by his parents after it became available online.

But yesterday the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) in Switzerland ruled in favour of New York-based law firm Baker & McKenzie, representing Lewis's estate, that the name belonged to its client.

Last night Gillian Saville-Smith, Comrie's mother and a writer, described the decision as a "scandalously one-sided appraisal of the evidence" and added: "We are shocked by the decision. We put up a spirited fight because we wanted to prove that you do not have to hand something over just because someone richer and more powerful tell you to do so."

The family's international legal battle began in April, when they received an unexpected and irate telephone call from the US lawyers demanding they hand over the domain name and threatening legal action.

The Saville-Smiths refused and rejected the offer of a refund for the cost of the site, then another offer asking them to set their own price for the address.

Mrs Saville-Smith and her husband, Richard, a charity adviser and accountant, had paid £70 for the domain name from the internet registration company Fasthosts, keeping it as a surprise for their son's 11th birthday to coincide with release of the film of the second Narnia book last month.

They then received a 128-page legal document before the case went before the WIPO.

Responding to yesterday's judgment, Mrs Saville-Smith continued: "This decision by a one-man panel, supposed to be impartial, allows a multi-million-dollar company to seize a domain name purchased entirely legitimately by ourselves which has not been used in any way improperly or illegally.

"We provided clear statements and evidence to prove we had not profited, nor sought to, from this domain name – yet these statements and evidence have simply been ignored.

"Our lawyer has presided over 80 World Intellectual Property Organisation panels. It is clear from the judgment that the panel had pre-decided to award the decision to the CS Lewis Company.

"There was absolutely no evidence of a 'bad faith' registration put forward by the CS Lewis Company's lawyer's, which was required by the WIPO rules to find against us.

"Justice has not been served, and instead the interests of corporate power and money have wrongly triumphed. 'Narnia' had great meaning before its huge commercialisation in recent years and this judgment effectively says money, not the truth, is all that matters now regarding CS Lewis's magnificent fictional kingdom – despite the values and spirituality that originally lay behind it."

The Saville-Smiths said they could not afford to continue the legal fight.

Stranger than fiction? How the tale unfolded

30 APRIL: Law firm Baker & McKenzie calls and demands that the Saville-Smiths hand over the domain name.

5 MAY: Mr Saville-Smith writes to firm: "You seek an amicable settlement, but in your first contact you threaten my wife with legal action."

8 MAY: Law firm e-mails: "Please advise whether you would be willing to transfer the domain name to CS Lewis Pte Ltd."

8 MAY: Mr Saville-Smith replies: "I am not infringing their trademark, so I see no reason why I should to accede to your request."

Later that day the law firm contacts the family, saying: "What would you consider a reasonable offer?"

9 MAY: Mr Saville-Smith writes back: "We don't want to sell the domain name, as it is a special present for a ten-year-old boy."

28 MAY: The family receives a copy of a 128-page legal complaint filed with the World Intellectual Property Organisation in Switzerland.

The full article contains 677 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 23 July 2008 11:34 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Chris,

Edinburgh 24/07/2008 00:20:27
The Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy is applied in cases of domain name disputes. Wikipedia puts it in simple terms:
A complainant in a UDRP proceeding must establish three elements to succeed:
1. The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights;
2. The registrant does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name; and
3. The registrant registered the domain name and is using it in "bad faith."
It goes on to say:
In a UDRP proceeding, a panel will consider several non-exclusive factors to assess bad faith, such as:
Whether the registrant registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark;
Whether the registrant registered the domain name to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, if the domain name owner has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; and
Whether the registrant registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
Whether by using the domain name, the registrant has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to the registrant's website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark.

Two points spring to mind; firstly why did CS Lewis Company not buy up all possible domain names if they are that concerned, instead of waiting for someone to buy a name, and then threaten them, and secondly what commercial gain was this 11 year old going to make from his new domain name?
I would agree with Mrs Saville-Smith - justice has not been served. I wonder what Douglas Gresham and his brother David think of this.
2

John PM,

Edinburgh 24/07/2008 01:24:43
Cyber squatting is a crime and this family knew they were in the wrong. If they love the Narnia books they should respect C S Lewis's estate and their right to protect their copyright.
3

bring them on,

24/07/2008 01:31:32
They should have asked for 100 grand, and never let it go to court.
4

alternative,

aus 24/07/2008 03:51:42
2. as they did not buy the domain name with the intention of selling it back to the so-called "rightful owner" (I suspect the CS Lewis estate never knew about it to start with) they have not committed a "cybersquatting crime". If they were guilty of that I assume they would have sold it when asked to name their price.

quote: 9 MAY: Mr Saville-Smith writes back: "We don't want to sell the domain name, as it is a special present for a ten-year-old boy."

I think you have an ulterior motive for siding with big business bullyboys, a member of the Estate perhaps.
5

Fifi la Bonbon,

24/07/2008 04:44:32
I don't believe that an "accountant and charity adviser" was not fully aware that this would happen. It sounds like a blatant publicity stunt, and it was shameful to rope in a child in this way.

Actually, if you look up the father's name on the internet - as the reporter should have done - you find that the pair of them are described on their website as "media specialists for charities."


"In the media, giving it ‘Big Licks’ – bringing lots of energy, ideas and commitment to achieve a big bag of coverage - is what we do best.... We’ll take your campaign, event or report and work it up into something the national media in Scotland - or UK-wide media - will want to cover. We are very experienced in doing ‘issues’, so we will never lose sight of yours."


These are not naive parents, caught in the headlights of corporate lawyers, but cynical Embra PR types boosting their profile in the hope of turning a few quid.
6

Toddy,

Macmerry 24/07/2008 04:54:38
I had the same problem with a domain name with the word "easy" in it. For some reason a large well known corporation of a similar name seemed to think that they had the rights to the word and all associations with it. Eventually as they have deeper pockets than me I had to give it up. I can see the lawyers point of view but a hell of a waste of money for not an awful lot as most people still use .com, .co.uk or .org all these other variations are just ways of the Nic's getting an additional revenue stream. Suppose it keeps a lot of lawyers in jobs though.
7

Boy Wonder,

24/07/2008 07:13:58
I'd've taken the money and ran!

Better with 100K in my bank than a web-address I wouldn't use past the age of 14!

If there's any justice, the estate should make a good payment to the boy anyway!
8

Louis Catorze,

24/07/2008 07:37:33
A domanin name for his birthday?

Bet he can't wait for christmas.
9

Louis Catorze,

24/07/2008 07:38:16
Hmmmmthat should be domain...twitched at the keyboard..!
10

Chris W,

24/07/2008 08:15:35
Corporations are bullies.
11

donald,

glasgow 24/07/2008 08:47:33
Na na na na Narnia.
12

ianH,

Balerno 24/07/2008 09:06:57
Nothing unusual in this, the lawyers realized that they could claim the domain back at any time after the priority period, but by waiting until it was taken by others they could generate fee income. the trust should now be examining how this happened and who was responsible for damaging their reputation. Someone is guilty of manipulating the process to generate cash at the expense of their client. i.e corruptly

13

Alasdair,

24/07/2008 09:23:00
Jeez.
I can't remember the last time I read so facinating a story.
The only thing more irritating than this kid's cretinous parents is the predictable "little boy" angle taken by lazy journalists.

At least in the online edition of this rag, we're spared the usual pics of the wee kid looking winsome on cue.
Drivel.
14

JulesF,

24/07/2008 11:11:25
If they give the go ahead for the dot x x x domains then I'm registering Narnia !!!
15

scunnin,

Germany 24/07/2008 11:14:29
the strange thing to me is:

narnia.plc.uk and
narnia.ca

are still available, anyone want to buy one??
16

King Richard IV,

Brisbane 24/07/2008 12:05:43
Shame, the wee guys family must have thought they could garnish a wee bit sympathy from taking on "Big Brother"! Well they came to the wrong Country in Scotland eh?
17

hertscot,

24/07/2008 12:49:49
Why, if they legally purchased an available domain name can a rich multi-national organisation demand they hand it over? Why didn't they already own all variations, as in #15?
So a big company accuses someone of cyber squatting, and claim it is intellectual property, the WIPO should have demanded that the author turn up and present evidence for HIS intellectual property.
Because, obviously there is no one at the Lewis Estate with any intellect capacity, or this wouldn't have happened in the first place.

Same old mantra "I am bigger than you, and I want it"
18

Bemused and above it all,

24/07/2008 15:43:38
My 2year old son believes he is fireman sam putting out fires, does that mean that S4C own him?
19

Vincent-W,

24/07/2008 16:20:08
My 11 year old got a football and a bike for his birthday. I think that's far healthier.

If my wife and I had got hi, a domain name he would not have thanked us for it.
20

Bemused and above it all,

24/07/2008 17:15:12
The whole shebang reminds me a bit of the sherrif of nottingham in the disney version of robin hood, stealing the wee rabbits birthday farthing for tax!
21

mobi,

usa 24/07/2008 18:03:08
The real funny part is that the .mobi extension is dead. it was meant for mobile phone Internet pages but with the iPhone and the fact that web sites can detect the broswer there is no need for the .mobi. After a couple of years try to name 5 useful mobi web sites.
22

blackley,

Edinburgh 24/07/2008 19:11:57
Poor little rich kid! Never mind he'll probably grow up and join one of those big corporate giants his savvy parents profess to dislike. Then he'll be doing the screwing!
23

shocked by the lazy reporting,

London 25/07/2008 14:54:19
I am absolutely disgusted and appalled - not by the facts of the story but by the horrendously one-sided reporting by the Scotsman, manufacturing this David and Goliath situation. Any journalistic credibility this publication might have had has just been thrown out the window.

Maybe I should be kind and forgive them for being taken for a ride by the Saville-Smith's, who both work in PR so clearly know how to turn this to their advantage. Nevertheless, Shan Ross should be ashamed for apparently not even reading the WIPO ruling and instead simply giving the SS's a platform for having a bit of a rant at the Lewis estate's expense. The Lewis estate are being savvy in not commenting on this open and shut case of bad faith domain name registration.

This couple are a pair of blatant cybersquatters looking to make a few fast bucks having registered all sorts of domain names like drwho.mobi, tardis.mobi, middleearth.mobi etc etc back in 2006. Were all of these for their son? And why, in 2006, did they decide that they would get their son a domain name for his birthday more than two years down the line? Why wait for Prince Caspian to come out when Lion/Witch/Wardrobe had just been released? An absolute joke of an excuse and WIPO rightly saw straight through it.

What's actually happened is they got caught with their hand in the cookie jar and are now trying to claim they've done nothing wrong and that they're being oppressed. These people have no class and no dignity and I have no respect for them in their failure to come clean.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.