TransparentBusiness Inc., which does business as Unicoin, has filed a lawsuit against Universal Navigation Inc., known as Uniswap Labs, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint seeks judicial declarations that Unicoin’s use of the UNICOIN mark and related branding does not infringe or dilute Uniswap’s claimed rights in UNI, UNISWAP, and UNICHAIN. It also asks the court to cancel Uniswap’s federal trademark registration for UNI and to rule that the domains unicoin.com and unicoin.org do not violate the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act.

The action follows a series of demand letters from Uniswap’s counsel. According to the complaint, letters dated June 3, July 17, and August 14 accused Unicoin of trademark infringement, dilution, cybersquatting, and unfair competition. Uniswap demanded that Unicoin permanently cease use of UNICOIN and other UNI-formative names in connection with cryptocurrency, blockchain, or decentralized finance activities, transfer the two domains, provide an accounting of related revenue and profits, and reimburse Uniswap’s legal fees.

Unicoin’s Response and Claims on the UNI Mark

Unicoin rejected the demands, stating that it independently developed and continuously used the UNICOIN name since 2021. The company argued that the brands differ in appearance and commercial meaning and that the widespread use of the UNI prefix undermines any claim to exclusive rights. It described UNI as a common prefix derived from the Latin word for “one,” appearing in everyday terms and in more than 3,600 U.S. Patent and Trademark Office registrations, roughly 1,000 of which remain active.

Unicoin further pointed to multiple unrelated cryptocurrency projects that have used UNI or similar naming conventions, some of which predate Uniswap’s September 2020 governance token. Uniswap’s federal registration for UNI covers technology for issuing cryptocurrency tokens used in protocol governance. The registration lists a first commercial use date of September 16, 2020, and was issued in February 2024. Because the registration is less than five years old, Unicoin contends it has not become incontestable and should be canceled on the grounds that UNI is generic or merely descriptive without acquired distinctiveness.

Differences in Branding and Products Cited

The complaint draws distinctions between the companies’ offerings and visual identities. Unicoin markets an asset-backed cryptocurrency under the tagline “The Smart Coin for Smart People.” Uniswap operates a decentralized exchange associated with its UNI governance token and Unichain blockchain. Unicoin stated that it withdrew plans for a separate governance token under the UNICOIN name and renamed a planned proprietary blockchain to remove any UNI prefix.

It argued that the names themselves convey different meanings: UNICOIN refers to a digital coin, UNISWAP to trading or exchange activity, and UNICHAIN to blockchain infrastructure. The filing includes a comparison of the companies’ unicorn logos, describing Unicoin’s design as angular with sharp lines in contrast to Uniswap’s curved imagery. Unicoin claimed years of concurrent marketing produced no known instances of consumer confusion and that it has reached thousands of investors and coinholders across more than 100 countries while spending millions of dollars on advertising, including prominent outdoor placements and industry events.

Timing Relative to Planned Token Offering

Unicoin characterized the timing of Uniswap’s demands as notable. The company said Uniswap founder Hayden Adams publicly commented on Unicoin in May 2024, indicating awareness of the business more than two years before the first infringement letter. The lawsuit was filed weeks ahead of the September 28 public launch date listed on Unicoin’s website for its UNCN token.

Uniswap remains the leading decentralized exchange by 24-hour trading volume, with more than $3.9 billion reported. At the time of the filings, Uniswap Labs had not issued a public comment on the lawsuit.

The case arrives amid separate legal matters involving both parties. Unicoin and certain executives previously faced a regulatory action alleging improper securities offerings, which the company has contested. Uniswap has prevailed in other intellectual property and class-action disputes in recent periods.