Lord Of The Rings ‘Sequel’ Must Be Destroyed After Major Legal Case

Lord of the Rings, based in a fictional world lovingly created by author J.R.R. Tolkien, comprises a series of novels and subsequent films beloved by millions. 

The franchise’s intricate world is so meticulously planned that languages, lineages, and histories could all be traced across generations and ages in Middle Earth, the setting of Lord of the Rings.

That’s why The Hobbit, a precursor to the Lord of the Rings series, fits so neatly into the canon of the Lord of the Rings ― and why Amazon was able to film The Ring of Power, an offshoot of the Lord of the Rings that’s meant to have occurred in the same world thousands of years before The Fellowship of the Ring. 

But in April of this year, US author Demetrious Polychron tried to sue J.R.R. Tolkien’s estate, claiming that the series infringed on his own book, The Fellowship Of The King. 

The case blew back into Polychron’s face when the US court not only dismissed the claim, but ruled that his won novel had broken copyright.

J.R.R. Tolkien’s estate then sued Polychron

The estate then fought to prevent Polychron’s book, which the author had described as “the pitch-perfect sequel to The Lord Of The Rings,” from being published. 

The Tolkien estate’s UK solicitor, Steven Maier, said that Polychron had created the novel on a “commercial basis,” and that the estate wouldn’t let “unauthorised authors and publishers... monetise JRR Tolkien’s much-loved works in this way.” 

A court has ordered a permanent injunction that not only means Polychron can’t distribute his book, but he must also destroy all physical and digital copies of The Fellowship of the King. 

Polychron is no longer allowed to write any more books based on Tolkien’s work, and he must also pay $134,000 (£106,000) to Amazon and the Tolkien estate for what the court ruled as an unreasonable and frivolous lawsuit. 

Maier, the estate’s solicitor, called the case an “important success,” saying “The estate hopes that the award of a permanent injunction and attorneys’ fees will be sufficient to dissuade others who may have similar intentions.” 

Note taken.