A seven-year-old boy can be given a normal name against his mother's wishes, a judge has ruled.
Psychologists argued that unless Carbon Dioxide Rogers receives a normal name soon he could face "a much reduced quality of life, if he survives secondary school."
Mr Justice Bodey said, "I am worried that her judgement has gone awry on the question of the pretentiousness of the name which Carbon Dioxide has been given."
"Any alternatives put forward were un-complimentary and 'alternative' names that, however well-intentioned, have never fared well when exposed to rigorous peer-review."
While acknowledging she had her son's best interests at heart, Mr Justice Bodey asked Ms Rogers whether "some sort of tie-up" with the media was influencing her thinking.
"Celebrities give pretentious and ridiculous names to their children all the time with absolutely zero side-effects," she answered, adding, "I find it difficult to imagine, for example, Shilo Pitt suffering any harm because of the name his parents gave him."
But the counsel appointed for Carbon Dioxide argued "standard naming" remains the only viable option.
In summing up, Mr Justice Bodey said that, "Despite it being plain Ms Roger's stance reflects the love she has for her son, it would be remiss of this court to allow a pretentious, untested and possibly harmful name to be used on the child, particularly when one considers the overwhelming amount of evidence there is to suggest a mainstream, more boring alternative would be very much in his best interests."
"And that is regardless of anything the likes of Gwyneth Paltrow might have to say on the subject."