Boy ordered to give up Narnia website - .Mobi

A SCOTTISH schoolboy must surrender a Web address tied to the Narnia fantasy world, which his father says he gave him as a present, after a ruling by a United Nations arbitrator.
The UN's patent and copyright agency WIPO said the independent arbitrator had ordered transfer of the site, www.narnia.mobi, to the estate of C.S.Lewis, late author of the popular Chronicles of Narnia books.
"We are shocked by the decision," Gillian, the mother of 11-year-old Comrie Saville-Smith told the Scotsman newspaper in Edinburgh after they were given advance notice of the ruling on Wednesday.
"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 tells you to do so," she said.

The case was brought to WIPO by the multi-billion dollar Lewis estate, registered in Singapore, in May as Prince Caspian, the second of a planned series of films of the Chronicles, was about to go on worldwide release.
The estate's lawyers, the US-based Baker and McKenzie, filed the complaint in May after the Saville-Smiths rejected offers to buy back the site, for which they paid £70 ($140) when the .mobi domain went in sale in 2006.
Media in Scotland have portrayed the case as a Narnia-like battle between a family determined to defend what they see as justice and a wealthy corporate giant - a theme some have compared to the "good v. evil" thread in the books.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24074857-23109,00.html#

 

A "boy" was not ordered to give up his domain name. The father was a domain speculator. He tried to claim that he bought the trademarked domain in 2006 as a 2008 birthday present for his son. I don't buy that and neither did the UDRP/WIPO panel.

Here is the UDRP decision:
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2008/d2008-0821.html

snippets:
The Respondent, together with his wife, runs the Saville-Ferguson media and PR agency. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name <narnia.mobi> on September 29, 2006, shortly after the dotMobi sunrise period for trademark owners had closed. The disputed domain name resolves to a parked web page provided by Sedo, containing “sponsored links” to commercial websites, including links to websites offering for sale merchandize and apparel related to “The Chronicles of Narnia” books and movies.

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.1

On June 17, 2008, two weeks after the filing of the instant Complaint with the Center, the Respondent registered the domain names <freenarnia.com> and <freenarnia.mobi>.

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,

 

This news it hott...but what about the decision..if its a trademark...cant we file a case...coz,everyone has the right to buy a domain of their choice..if available..pls clear me...im in doubt..(sry if n00bish)

 

I think this is wrong. As I would agree with cia, if you buy a domain, its yours and no one an do anything about that unless they are prepared to buy it from you. And technically the father still owns that domain...

 

cia, yea there should be a rule like that but currently registeration of trademark domains r not allowed, stuff like, microsoft.newtld or aol.com.pk

these kinds of domains are taken back. U can keep them if u can think of a way to use the site not affiliated with the trademark in ANY WAY...like AOL.com.pk for Always One Link or something

 

Personally, I think he should surrender the domain, it's a trademark. The whole point of trademarks is so only one organisation can use that name, unless they give permission. It's the same for offline, if I opened a company called 'Microsoft', their lawyers would immediately be jumping on me, why shouldn't it be the same for domains?

 

I see your point but how come even though when Apple had trademarked the name "iPhone" they still had to pay a couple million to get the domain www.iphone.com?

 

I have very little sympathy for the purchaser here. It is obvious the domain is trademarked and they should have turned it over to the rightful owners the second they were informed of that.

 

Because Apple's product came later. The first owner of the name is honored, in this case it was the owner of the domain www.iphone.com who had it from 1995 apparently.

This is to prevent companies from coming up with new product names and taking domains for free from others who've had it since before the product was announced.

 

dont they have better things to do like impeach bush??

 

The boy should have posted about it in the domain appraisals forum so that I could have said "less than reg fee - trademark issue"

 

Figures, the internet is becoming more corrupt and like a one big mafia - richer people do what they want.

 

You are clearly noobish as you said. If you bought a gun, do you think you've
got the right to kill someone with it?

While everyone has the so-called right to buy something, certain laws and/or
decisions limit one's ability to use them as they please. You don't get to have
things done your way all the time.

And the internet is becoming more filled with people who don't appear keen on
trying to understand fully how and why certain legal issues occur. But it's to
be expected.

 

haha, who buys a son a domain? thats really wierd for a b-day present -_-

 

I think its ridiculous ...

There are Millions of Trademarks out there! Perhaps the registrars should keep a cope of the trademarked domains and take them out completely.

Now that is absolutely ridiculous, isn't it? Of course. AOL.COM is Different from AOL.CA or AOL.com.pk ... if they are all differen AOL (i.e. American Online or All Of Links or All of London). So if I am from Canada and I have a company called All of Links then why does AOL have the right? BULLOCKS!

 

I bought my son his first domain - but it was 2 weeks before his birthday - not 2 years. It's also common for parents to register the name of their newborn or youngsters.

 

This reminds me of how fast Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt's legal team immediately bought all possible domain names linked to their newborn twins.

 

I love the attitude that trademark rights are somehow irrelevant to so many webmasters. I guess when someone infringes upon a trademark to get a website that belongs to a wealthy organization it's fine, but when i come steal your site's content, suddenly copyrights and trademarks are important?

I'm tired of thieves thinking they can steal other people's property because the want it. Every top level domain has rules regard existing trademarked names, if the authority recognizes a trademark from particular countries those are the rules.

Regarding the AOL.ca comment, if AOL registered the trademark in canada, whether or not they registered the domain, it's their name legally, not yours.

 

Who buys their kid a domain name? I mean if it were a dot com or the kids name I would understand, but a dot mobi 2 years before the kids birthday?

 

Yawn, been mentioned before. And it's been also said: A) your options to be
able to register certain desired domain names will be limited, and B) there's no
way on earth anyone can keep a full list of trademarks.

Would you want A to happen?