Dispute #183

Court Start Date Dispute Status Current Period Time remaining End Date
Non-Technical 2020-04-24 15:42 Already Ruled Execution Already Ruled 2020-05-03 16:02
Arbitrable Creator
Tokens

Unique Votes in all the rounds

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
0 2 0 1

Round 0

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
0 2 0 1
Round 0 Vote Casting Date
Pending
No 2020-04-29 09:55
No 2020-04-27 12:02

Evidences

Evidences provided by Vagarish

Evidence #1:

Request for mild arbitration Within the token contract, the name was initially specified as "TokenCard" only later the rebranding to "Monolith" was appended. Respectively and in the sense of constructive goodwill, the court may accept the registration of TKN as "TokenCard" since the name is not fundamentally wrong. Further adjustments to the token name and a change to "Monolith" may be performed subsequently. Generally, minor and correctable inaccuracies should not be a reason for rejections.

Evidence #2:

Submitted name does not comply with the policy. Policy: "The name should be the most commonly used name to refer to the asset. It does not necessarily need to be the official name given by project creators nor the one in the token contract." The submitted name is not the most commonly used name to refer to this asset. Monolith is the most commonly used name for the TKN project. Websites like CMC, CoinGecko, etc, all use Monolith to refer to TKN. Even on the official website Monolith is used. https://monolith.xyz/

Evidence #3:

Name correct Name is literally specified as "TokenCard" on Etherscan: https://etherscan.io/token/0xaAAf91D9b90dF800Df4F55c205fd6989c977E73a

Evidence #4:

Token challenge Incorrect name, should be Monolith
Check this Case on Kleros Resolve