CS Lewis beats Edinburgh family

I always think there’s something mildly despicable when Soft Targets are selected for special attention, and if we accept reported accounts, this certainly seem to be the case in the outcome of a dispute which arose between an Edinburgh couple and the estate of author CS Lewis.

The World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) seems to have succeeded in scoring something of an own goal by settling a dispute over ownership of the domain name www.narnia.mobi in favour of C.S. Lewis (Pte) Ltd. While WIPO seems to more like WIMPO when confronted by serial cybersquatters, it seems they had no problem in stripping the domain from the family, and handing it to the company which handles the CS Lewis estate, and owns numerous other Narnia trademarks.

What stinks in this case is that WIPO can make their ruling based only on their opinion, and nned not provide any evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of the accused. The family bought the domain for £70, intending to present it to their 11 year old son, who enjoys CS Lewis, to use for his email address.

WIPO decided the family had registered and was using the domain name in bad faith:

In its judgement, the WIPO said it could not think of any “plausible” reason why the family would think the Narnia mark could be used for an e-mail address.

It said it was “equally disturbing” that he went on to register the domain names freenarnia.com and freenarnia.mobi after the complaint was filed.

“While the respondent denies making any active use of the disputed domain name, the passive holding of a domain name can be considered as bad faith where it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the disputed domain name that would be legitimate,” it said.

“This panel cannot, in the circumstances of this case, find the respondent’s intended use as asserted to be legitimate.”

Although the family had not done anything with the name, and provided statement from their internet registration company that they had not tried to make any money from the name, this was ignored.

And what exactly did WIPO mean when the described the family’s registration of the domain names freenarnia.com and freenarnia.mobi after the complaint was filed as “equally disturbing”? I think I’d have done something “equally disturbing” if CS Lewis’ estate had been hounding me – and had some web pages behind them with the story.

Big businesses only have themselves to blame for making cybersquatting a profitable “tool”, having paid ridiculous amounts to get domains they wanted, and the real squatters care little for WIPO and rulings as they register domains by the skip load in the hope of netting a goldmine. Even small businesses fall foul of this ploy, and can be asked for 5-figure sums if they want a domain that matches their name, and I doubt WIPO would bother with them.

In this case at least, the result smacks of a big “name” mercilessly crushing a little tiddler.

Having read a later and more detailed review, which also leads to the ruling, I can’t help but consider they have been made an example of, in the knowledge that they probably were unwilling to fight, and could not afford the potential costs, something the CS Lewis estate could easily absorb without even noticing.