In reply to Steve Burge (@stevejburge).

Actually, it's not open and shut. He lost on a technicality. He lost the third point of the case. He lost because of this:

"Complainant claims that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is to divert and confuse customers and potential customers. The Panel notes that Complainant did not include an exhibit showing that redirects to a webpage owned by Respondent. "

The Panel ruled in Automattic's favor because Chris' team didn't given the evidence that Automattic is redirecting the domain. Never mind Automattic admitted to doing this.

I take that back, it *was* an open and shut case...for Chris. Had his lawyers submitted a screencast of thesis redirecting to theme shaper, he probably would have won.