The judge made the right decision here. Domain names are not, strictly speaking, property of the registrants -- the fact that you must renew them indicates that they are really being rented rather than owned. You, as a registrant, gain some contractual rights over the name in question, but not true "ownership". In fact, RFC 1591, the closest thing that exists to an "official" statement of what the creators of the domain name system intended, has the rather idealistic statement: "Concerns about "rights" and "ownership" of domains are inappropriate. It is appropriate to be concerned about "responsibilities" and "service" to the community." This sentiment came from the notion that the domain namespace was a resource for the community, not property to be speculated in, which unfortunately has a quaintly archaic ring these days.
At any rate, the issue in that particular case was that somebody was suing a registrar for putting the registrar's default page, with ads for the registrar and its sponsors, on the website reachable by the domain registered by the plaintiff, which he claimed was a violation of his ownership rights to the domain. This is a really silly suit, since if he had paid the slightest attention to where the domain was pointed when he registered it, and subsequently, he could have easily made it go to anywhere else he desired; the registrar page was merely the default, not a mandatory page. It seems he's asking the court to punish the registrar for the registrant's own technical ignorance.