Dispute #122

Court Start Date Dispute Status Current Period Time remaining End Date
Non-Technical 2019-10-31 15:11 Already Ruled Execution Already Ruled 2019-11-16 00:23
Arbitrable Creator
Tokens

Unique Votes in all the rounds

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
7 4 0 1

Round 0

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
1 1 0 1
Round 0 Vote Casting Date
Yes 2019-11-06 01:30
No 2019-11-06 00:52
Pending

Round 1

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
6 1 0 0
Round 1 Vote Casting Date
Yes 2019-11-07 14:54
Yes 2019-11-07 14:54
Yes 2019-11-08 10:30
Yes 2019-11-09 11:36
Yes 2019-11-09 11:36
No 2019-11-09 22:11
Yes 2019-11-08 12:45

Round 2

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
12 3 0 0
Round 2 Vote Casting Date
Yes 2019-11-10 19:15
Yes 2019-11-10 19:15
No 2019-11-11 10:23
Yes 2019-11-11 09:19
Yes 2019-11-11 07:40
Yes 2019-11-11 07:40
Yes 2019-11-12 12:20
Yes 2019-11-12 12:20
Yes 2019-11-12 12:20
Yes 2019-11-12 12:20
No 2019-11-11 00:08
No 2019-11-11 00:08
Yes 2019-11-11 19:19
Yes 2019-11-11 19:19
Yes 2019-11-12 01:13

Evidences

Evidences provided by Vagarish

Evidence #1:

On Transparency One argument from the submitter side is that the logo is "good enough" to not violate the transparency policy. The attached document shows why it is not.

Evidence #2:

Common sense should prevail even if there is no explicit policy. Check WINGS - https://tokens.kleros.io/token/0xabe49ddffcac5ab14ca0fad9dc865beae1f1cde898e89a927c9bb4493e024adc No explicit policy for "latest". No explicit policy for "no shadows". There is a mention in the policy: "should not appear pixelated or blurry". Shadows are in the same category (level of abstraction) as blur and pixelation. No explicit wording for "upside down". From here we can reach an argument: "it is titled only 15 degrees". The logo on the website has filename "Temp-Logo-Shadow", the logo in TCR has shadow. This is *NOT* the quality we stand for here at Kleros.

Evidence #3:

Logo is fully compliant with Kleros policy Thus, there is no reason to deny the submission. See uploaded pdf for more information.

Evidence #4:

Haven't read all the evidence but zoom in and see for yourself... ...shadow at the bottom is not a part of the logo, haven't seen any other logo with such thing.

Evidence #5:

Less Opinions & Lies, More Facts The requester side keeps repeating the points that have been rebutted without even trying to argue the challenger's claims within the uploaded rebuttal document. The submitted logo is not the official one nor it is the most used one. Shadows, lines, or any graphical components not included in the official version should be deemed part of the background. Deciding that "two semi horizontal lines" aren't part of background is a subjective matter, what if there are ten lines? What if they are more opaque? Jurors should be objective and simply compare it with a canonical source if it exists, or consensus if it doesn't exist. The submitted logo fails both; doesn't have a transparent background; and therefore violates the transparency policy.

Evidence #6:

Listing criteria and facts A submission has to respect listing criteria and this is what jurors have to consider and not opinion. Is the submitted logo representing widely the project ? Yes, it has been retrieved directly from the official website and is the most used one (Telegram, Twitter, medium). Has the submitted logo a transparent background? Of course it has. Thin lines at the bottom are shadows and part of the logo (logo displayed and used on the official website). What about quality of the logo? Clearly following the rules and good quality. As stated before all these points can be verified (https://morpheus.network/). So, as this submission respects all criteria, it should be accepted.

Evidence #7:

The logo is obviously wrong What can I say? Check the attached .PDF, ask at the source. Don't trust. Verify.

Evidence #8:

Deliberate Ignorance of Precedents "Displaying a logo publicly on official website implies that the logo is official." This is merely an opinion. There is no such thing written at all in the TCR policy. When ruling on disputes that lie outside the scope of the policy, jurors should rely on precedents and common sense. Cases such as Maker (https://tokens.kleros.io/token/0x420ad0a6c578dbd237f6ea77c969b4c906bdabb4719e3661c356ad1eecdf9c86 https://tokens.kleros.io/token/0x71059ac5eee6e9b48f9e5018df66f430cbcfbdd1328ceb8b262a027005a22cae) and IMT (https://tokens.kleros.io/token/0xfc66937304f9a1278a5c7a4c4d7e5d44f712311b8497ff8a1d215a3db3b84e5a) have shown that even when the logo appears on the website of the token/project, the official logo is still preferred. Even more, the submitted logo isn't even consistently used among the Morpheus websites & social medias.

Evidence #9:

The Official Logo Is The One Which Appear On Official Website Displaying a logo publicly on official website implies that the logo is official. Therefore this submission is not violating guidelines in the primary document.

Evidence #10:

Rebuttal There are lots of confusion and strawmans here. Hopefully the attached document could clear up the case.

Evidence #11:

Logo is fine and summary of challenger's inconsistancy First, challenger claimed logo was not transparent which was obviously wrong. Then, challenger claimed there should not be any white "M" shadow included in the logo (and took an old CMC logo as an example), which was false again. It doesn't matter if the last logo provided by challenger is slightly different because the one used on their website and their social media (Twitter, medium, telegram) is clearly the one of the submission, thus representing the project widely. So, the submission should be accepted.

Evidence #12:

Officials' Statement The challenger has requested the Morpheus team to provide an official transparent logo of the project, and this image is given by the director of marketing: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ei2lb54y4be7uo1/Full%20Morpheus.Network%20Logo%20Black.png . As we can see, this is the one used on Bittrex: brighter colors, semi-transparent lines and smaller white shadow.

Evidence #13:

Arbitration Should Be Objective Not Subjective Logo has weird semi-transparent lines at bottom. True, but it doesn't violate any rules. And saying this logo contains 'design mistakes' despite being used on official site is subjective. What jurors has to do is to apply rules, not to invent subjective rules.

Evidence #14:

Doesn't matter if it is the logo on the website I don't see why it matters that it is the same image file used on the website. The purpose of having images on this list is that they can be used anywhere. Perhaps the pixel line doesn't matter on the website but it might show up other places it is used and look bad. Example: the logo used on other exchanges does not have the pixel line so clearly it was caught by somebody else and removed. If you aren't arguing that the pixel line was a deliberate design choice and part of the official logo then we should deny it.

Evidence #15:

Logo is Not Cropped But the Original Uploaded logo is not cropped from anywhere but the exact same of the logo which is used on the official website https://morpheus.network. This is the URL: https://morpheus.network/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Morpheus-Temp-Logo-Shadow.png Go ahead and compare.

Evidence #16:

Opinion Another 3rd Party I think it should be clearly rejected in favor the challenger. You can see a line of semi transparent pixels along the bottom of the image which is clearly not meant to be part of the logo. Therefore it is poorly cropped. The white shadow is fine. Challenger just got lucky there actually was something else wrong with the image but it should still be resubmitted with a better cropped image.

Evidence #17:

Opinion 3rd party Independent party here. I think this case should trivially be decided in favor of the requester. The challenger's claims are frivolous and the submitted logo clearly represents the asset. I consider the "lines" or "shadows" that the challenger talks about merely as stylistic artifacts of the logo and they do not hinder to logo's representability of the underlying asset.

Evidence #18:

Summary & Evidence #3 To summarize for the next set of jurors, the submitted logo has various problems: a. White shadows not present in other context except twice in the main website. b. Two semi transparent horizontal lines at the bottom of the logo. Here are more examples on top of the previous ones: https://morpheus.network/token/ https://medium.com/@themorpheus https://medium.com/morpheus-network/litecoin-ltc-enhancement-to-morpheus-networks-innovative-supply-chain-platform-733285e2caaa . Even when the logo is shown with a white shadow, the width of the shadows are different from the submitted one. It is clear that the logo is a customised one; not to be used as the official branding of the project.

Evidence #19:

Logo Is Transparent And Original Logo is transparent and taken from https://morpheus.network. This logo is used multiple times in the website and the most common one. It has semi-transparent lines at the bottom, which is weird but it does not violate any rules therefore this submission is valid.

Evidence #20:

Additional Evidence On top of my first claim, the example the requester has given only adds more to the evidences: Here's the Bittrex logo: https://bittrexblobstorage.blob.core.windows.net/public/670d68bd-b1e1-4378-b43e-a08c2b168504.png . Compare it to the uploaded one and we can see the white shadow is smaller and shallower, not to mention there are no semi transparent lines at the bottom of the logo

Evidence #21:

So logo is indeed transparent contrary to what the challenger claimed Challenger initially claimed that the logo was not transparent whereas it is obviously transparent. So this claim is false for one. Besides, the "M" white shadow included in the logo is not a special design and is used for their social media aswell but as the shadow is white it does not appear. The challenger also takes CMC as an example whereas the logo used is an old one (bad colors and wrong white lining). On the contrary, an uptodate exchange like Bittrex (https://global.bittrex.com/Market/Index?MarketName=BTC-MRPH) shows the correct logo (see attached file). So the submission should be accepted.

Evidence #22:

Evidences First, the logo is a specially tailored one for use in their website to contrast the dark background. All logo shown on Morpheus' social medias has no shadows, as is the one on CMC. Second, there are two faint darkish horizontal lines around the base of the logo which could be seen on black background. See attached.

Evidence #23:

Logo is transparent This transparent logo has been retrieved from Morpheus.Network website (https://morpheus.network/). Their logo includes a shadow to the "M" as one can see on the attached image and on their website.

Evidence #24:

Token challenge Wrong logo: not transparent
Check this Case on Kleros Resolve