You don't know what you're talking about; read his complaint, it's reasonable.
I've read it, it's biased and self-serving. It might be reasonable for a kleptocrat.
It's just that WIPO doesn't protect anybody other than big business based on trademark law.
Ron Paul failed to meet the burden of proof. He couldn't prove he has a trade mark on his name (because he hasn't registered one), couldn't show that the site owners had no legitimate interest in the site (because they clearly have a legitimate interest), and couldn't show that they were using the site in bad faith (because he asked them to sell it). You may not understand this, but he had to prove all three allegations. He's 0 for 3.
When a group of people not associated with Ron Paul use his name as a domain name, that actually is misleading, because it creates the impression that they have some official connection.
Actually it doesn't. It says "fan site" on the site's header, it's pretty hard to miss. The domain name is nothing but an easy way to remember the site's address.
It's rather amusing to watch libertarians complain that the government isn't confiscating the property of one libertarian and transferring it to another. I love seeing exactly how deep your principles run.