Dispute #522

Court Start Date Dispute Status Current Period Time remaining End Date
Non-Technical 2020-12-11 20:04 Already Ruled Execution Already Ruled 2020-12-21 04:56
Arbitrable Creator

Unique Votes in all the rounds

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
1 2 0 0

Round 0

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
1 2 0 0
Round 0 Vote Casting Date
Yes 2020-12-16 18:33
No 2020-12-15 20:56
No 2020-12-15 13:41


Evidences provided by Vagarish

Evidence #1:

Evidence From a Juror Challengers evidence is false. The logo is the most widely used, transparent, not badly cut, and PNG. Also, the item is not duplicate. About the white ring, it is true that a common version of this logo has a transparent ring inside the logo BUT every instance of this logo was displayed on top of a white background thus a white ring is what's intended visually. Therefore this is not enough reason to reject this item. (Imagine displaying the logo on top of a red background, there would be a red ring, which undoubtedly contradicts with the intended visual appearance of the logo.) Don't forget the rule of the general court which applies to every subcourt: "Jurors should attempt to interpret disputes according to the "spirit of the dispute" unless the arbitrable contract or the policies of the subcourt state otherwise." In light of the spirit of this dispute, I vote in favor of the requester.

Evidence #2:

Token challenge This submission was challenged for: 1. Logo is not most commonly used logo and also not the official one, as can be seen on https://aave.com/aTokens. CoinMarketCap, CoinGecko, Etherscan, T2CR, and the official website all have a transparent ring, while the submitted logo has a white ring. 2. Therefore, this submission also violates the following policy rule: ➤ Attached Logos should be PNG format with a transparent background. 3. Submission is a duplicate. A submission with the same name, token symbol, and ticker already exists in the T2CR. ➤ In case of duplicates, only the first submission should be accepted. The most recent submissions appear highest in the list. 4. The logo is badly cut, therefore also violating the following policy rule: ➤ The logo should be fully included.
Check this Case on Kleros Resolve