In my opinion, the judge was right in objecting to the use of "effectively" in this context: it would have left it to the discretion of the interested party how well they would conceal the sign, opening up the venue for renewed litigation.
I think there are situations where the use of "effectively" may be justified. If e.g. it is highly unlikely that overwhelming debts can be repaid in the foreseeable future, one might say the company is effectively (i.e. for all practical purposes) broke.