Unicoin sues Uniswap Labs, seeks to cancel UNI registration
TransparentBusiness Inc., operating as Unicoin, sued Universal Navigation Inc., which does business as Uniswap Labs, in the Southern District of New York seeking declarations that its UNICOIN brand does not infringe or dilute Uniswap’s claimed marks and asking the court to cancel the UNI trademark registration. The complaint also asks the court to find that the unicoin.com and unicoin.org domains do not violate the federal Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act.
Why It Matters
The suit challenges an established DeFi protocol’s trademark claims and seeks cancellation of its UNI registration, creating potential legal hurdles for both branding and token launches; the dispute comes weeks before Unicoin’s publicly listed launch date and involves a market-leading decentralized exchange by volume.
Key Facts
- plaintiff: TransparentBusiness Inc. (doing business as Unicoin)
- defendant: Universal Navigation Inc. (doing business as Uniswap Labs)
- court: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
- claims-sought: Declarations that UNICOIN does not infringe or dilute UNI, UNISWAP and UNICHAIN; cancellation of UNI trademark registration; domain ACPA declaration
- demand-letters-dates: June 3, July 17 and August 14 (from Uniswap’s counsel to Unicoin)
TransparentBusiness Inc., which markets itself as Unicoin, filed suit against Universal Navigation Inc., which operates under the Uniswap Labs name, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint asks the court to declare that Unicoin’s UNICOIN mark does not infringe or dilute Uniswap’s asserted UNI, UNISWAP and UNICHAIN marks and requests cancellation of the UNI federal trademark registration.
According to the filing, counsel for Uniswap sent three demand letters to Unicoin on June 3, July 17 and August 14. Those letters allegedly accused Unicoin of trademark infringement, dilution, cybersquatting and unfair competition, and sought multiple remedies: cessation of use of UNICOIN and related UNI-formative marks, transfer of the unicoin.com and unicoin.org domains, an accounting of revenue and profits, and reimbursement of Uniswap’s legal fees.
Unicoin’s complaint also seeks judicial relief concerning the two domains, asking the court to declare that unicoin.com and unicoin.org do not violate the federal Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA). The lawsuit was filed weeks before the Sept. 28 public launch date that Unicoin lists on its website for the UNCN token.
Cointelegraph reports it has reached out to Uniswap for comment. The article notes that, at the time of writing, DeFiLlama ranked the Uniswap protocol first among decentralized exchanges by 24-hour volume, with more than $3.9 billion.
Keep Reading
Europe’s top regulator questions Polymarket and Kalshi’s EU access, warns of authorization gaps
OKX brings OpenAI and Anthropic bets to Europe as pre-IPO trading grows
Why a new SEC plan could ease a legal headache for tokenized securities
