"Respect Branding" is not a valid reason for rejection
(Note: Read in court.kleros to be able to read line breaks)
[[Reply to 1st]]
>The branding name from the official is definitely GROWTH DeFi. The name used on the official website, in their whitepaper, on their twitter (...) "GROWTH DeFi". ///////
This is known. Twitter handle is @GrowthDefi, though, so it's not that clear crystal.
>while also by various coin trackers //////
Which ones apart from CoinGecko that are not obscurely irrelevant? Cite sources.
> In the GROWTH DeFi whitepaper, there are 15 mentions of "GROWTH" (in that letter exact casing). This project is brand new, since September 2020, and only has around 985 followers on Twitter and 1073 members in their Telegram channel. For this reason, we should respect their brand style, like CoinGecko does. ////////
Why should we "respect their brand style"? That is not in the policy. Policy claims submission should respect the official spelling, nothing else. If "must respect brand style" is not in Policy, then the token is filtered out due to subjective opinion.
[[Reply to 2nd]]
>The use of the name is divided (although there is a majority by GROWTH DeFi) and in that case the name given by the creators must prevail. The token must be rejected //////
What is the evidence for a majority by GROWTH DeFi? I observed the opposite.
[[Reply to 3rd]]
>This case is similar to the REBASE case, both disputes are regarding letter casing. The jury of the REBASE case just ruled to follow the project's official branding style. As follows, the jury of this case should follow the ruling of the REBASE case. NOTE: appeals are still possible in the REBASE case, as such, the decision is not final yet. The jurors however ruled convincingly, 5 against 0, in the appeal. /////////
Case Law is not proper arbiter work, as explained in 2nd pdf. So "should follow the ruling of the REBASE case" is not justified.
About brand name, if you check the Telegram group they have had, as direct witnesses, small observations on the case, claimed that the casing does not really matter, and changed Telegram group name to "Growth DeFi". If the community are uncertain themselves about the capitalization of the token and tend to use the natural "Growth" casing that differs from the official, does that mean such tokens will not be allowed to enter TCR? A similar case could be made if this was submitted as "GROWTH DeFi" then, as users mostly use "Growth" or "GRO" when referring to it. Dev claimed (screenshot of Telegram group attached) "Growth is more formal", so maybe it is ideal to list it as it is listed in highly frequented sites such as coinmarketcap or Uniswap.