Unicoin sues Uniswap Labs to cancel UNI registration

Unicoin sued Uniswap Labs for cancellation of the "UNI" trademark and confirmation of non-infringement.

A company behind operating the "Unicoin" brand has filed a lawsuit against Uniswap Labs in federal court for the Southern District of New York, seeking a court ruling that its "UNICOIN" trademark does not infringe or dilute the trademark rights claimed by Uniswap. Transparent Business Inc., which conducts Unicoin business The court was also asked to revoke the registration of the U.S."UNI" trademark.

At the heart of the dispute are trademark claims and alleged brand abuse allegations made by Uniswap representatives through a series of legal letters sent over a period of months. Unicoin's complaint filed on Tuesday requests the court to issue a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and non-dilution, as well as to determine whether Unicoin's domain name violates U.S. anti-cybersquatting laws.

Key Points

• Transparent Business Inc. (i.e. Unicoin) filed a lawsuit in federal court in New York, seeking a court declaration that "UNICOIN" did not infringe or dilute Uniswap's claimed trademark rights.
• The petition asks the court to cancel the U.S. Trademark Registering of "UNI," which Uniswap claims to own or have rights to.
• According to reports, Uniswap's lawyers issued three lawyers 'letters on June 3, July 17 and August 14, accusing Unicoin of trademark infringement, trademark dilution, cybersquatting and unfair competition.
• Unicoin also challenged its claims related to the "unicoin.com" and "unicoin.org" domain names under the federal Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA).
• The legal action comes shortly before Unicoin's UNCN tokens are scheduled to go public on September 28.

Unicoin's lawsuit against Uniswap's trademark rights

According to Unicoin's complaint filed in the Federal Court for the Southern District of New York, Transparency Business Inc. A court declaration is being sought that its "UNICOIN" logo does not infringe or dilute the trademarks Uniswap claims, including "UNI","UNISWAP" and "UNICHAIN". The company further requested that the U.S. Trademark Registering of "UNI" be revoked. The request is significant because it directly challenges the scope of any trademark rights claimed by Uniswap. If approved, this could narrow or eliminate the basis for future enforcement arguments related to the "UNI" brand.

The filing also asked the court to declare that the company's "unicoin.com" and "unicoin.org" domain names did not violate the federal Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA). Part of the case aims to determine whether the domain names were obtained or used in a manner that met federal standards for cybersquatting.

Lawyers 'letters form the framework for Uniswap's allegations

Unicoin's complaint states that Uniswap's lawyers issued three lawyers' letters on June 3, July 17 and August 14. According to reports, in these letters, Uniswap accused Unicoin of trademark infringement, trademark dilution, cybersquatting and unfair competition.

According to the complaint, these lawyers 'letters required Unicoin to take the following actions:

• Stop using "UNICOIN" and other logos that contain "UNI" elements.
• Transfer the "unicoin.com" and "unicoin.org" domain names.
• Provide account details of revenue and profits.
• Compensation for Uniswap's legal fees.

These requirements indicate that Uniswap's strategy is not limited to stopping trademark use, but also seeks financial disclosure and expense reimbursement. This broad enforcement stance is why the case has attracted so much attention: the court's ruling could shape the enforcement of Uniswap and similar brands over overlapping names and networks.

The media contacted Uniswap to comment on this matter, but no reply had been received as of press time.

Why trademark cases are critical to crypto brands

Although the controversy is presented in legal trademark terms, it has practical implications for crypto projects because naming and domain name strategies are closely linked to user discovery, marketing and community recognition. In a market where tokens and apps are rapidly proliferating, brand identities and online domain names often become the first points of contact for users looking for official services, documents and liquidity.

In this case, Unicoin questioned both trademark infringement and trademark dilution. In short, this means that two different legal theories are at work: whether Unicoin's use of its logos could lead to confusion with the logos advocated by Uniswap; and whether such behavior undermines or weakens those logos even if there is no direct confusion. Unicoin's inclusion of downplay and cybersquatting claims suggests that it views Uniswap's law enforcement threat as a multipronged offensive.

Investors and builders are likely to watch closely how the court handles similarities between the "UNI" series of terms, and whether the case depends on the degree of confusion in the market, the strength of Uniswap's claims to the referenced trademarks, or the specific use of Unicoin domain names.

Timing: Filed lawsuit before Unicoin token goes public

The lawsuit was filed a few weeks before Unicoin listed UNCN token on its website on September 28 public listing date.

This timing may be important for participants assessing execution risk and operational continuity. Token issuance in the crypto space often relies on marketing, websites, and community entry-areas that can become collateral victims of trademark and domain name disputes. Although filing itself does not indicate that the listing will be delayed, the existence of active federal litigation is the kind of uncertainty that may affect planning, partnerships and user communication.

In addition, Unicoin's competitive background can also provide background information on why law enforcement concerns from well-known brands may intensify. As of writing, DeFiLlama ranks the Uniswap protocol as the top decentralized exchange based on 24-hour trading volume, with trading volume exceeding US$3.9 billion. Leading position in the DeFi transaction stack makes brand-related enforcement even more important, as other services may be measured for consistency with widely recognized naming and user expectations.

Next case developments to pay attention to

The next developments to be followed include how Unicoin and Uniswap demonstrate legal standards for infringement, dilution and ACPA-related domain name issues, and whether the court will handle requests to cancel the "UNI" Trademark Registering. Given that the token launch date is already on the calendar and the multiple lawyers 'letters are recorded in the complaint, the pace of the lawsuit and intermediate rulings may determine how both parties manage their brands and online image in the future.