Unicoin has sued Uniswap Labs in New York federal court, seeking a declaration that its UNICOIN brand does not infringe Uniswap’s trademarks and asking the court to cancel Uniswap’s federal registration for “UNI.” The lawsuit challenges how broadly Uniswap can claim exclusive trademark rights over the three-letter UNI term, which Unicoin argues is widely used across commercial markets.
The case was filed on September 8 by TransparentBusiness, Inc., which operates as Unicoin, against Universal Navigation Inc., doing business as Uniswap Labs, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint turns a series of infringement demands from Uniswap into a direct challenge to the validity and scope of its UNI trademark rights.
Unicoin Challenges the UNI Trademark
According to the complaint, Unicoin argues that UNI is generic or merely descriptive and lacks the distinctiveness required to identify a single commercial source. It cites more than 3,600 U.S. Patent and Trademark Office records containing the UNI prefix, including roughly 1,000 active registrations. Those figures form part of Unicoin’s argument that UNI is too widely used to support the broad exclusivity Uniswap is asserting.
The dispute escalated after Uniswap’s counsel sent demand letters on June 3, July 17 and August 14, alleging trademark infringement, dilution, cybersquatting and unfair competition. Unicoin says it rejected the first demand on June 23 and maintained that it had independently developed and continuously used the UNICOIN brand since 2021. Uniswap’s allegations and Unicoin’s defenses remain competing claims that the court has not yet resolved.
Unicoin also argues that the two brands differ sufficiently in their products, positioning and visual identity to avoid consumer confusion. The complaint says years of simultaneous marketing have not produced known examples of consumers confusing Unicoin with Uniswap. The absence or presence of actual confusion could become an important factual issue as the litigation develops.
Crypto Branding Faces a New Legal Test
The requested relief goes beyond permission to continue using UNICOIN. Unicoin wants the court to cancel Uniswap’s federal UNI registration while declaring that its own branding does not infringe Uniswap’s UNI, UNISWAP or UNICHAIN marks. A ruling on cancellation could clarify how courts assess short and commonly used naming elements when they become associated with major crypto products.
For exchanges, token issuers and other market intermediaries, the case also highlights the operational consequences of trademark disputes. Challenges over names can lead to domain demands, marketing restrictions and requests affecting how platforms display or support assets. Clear trademark due diligence becomes particularly important when token tickers and project names rely on short terms already used across multiple industries.
The lawsuit remains at an early stage, and no court has determined that Uniswap’s registration is invalid or that either company infringed the other’s rights. For now, the case is a contested trademark action rather than a precedent, with its broader significance depending on how the court evaluates distinctiveness, prior use and the likelihood of consumer confusion.
