Unicoin sues Uniswap over UNI trademark dispute

Trademark dispute goes to court: Unicoin sues FirstTransparent Business Inc.

Unicoin, a company related to the UNICOIN token, has filed a trademark dispute with the federal court. The lawsuit between Unicoin and Uniswap was formally opened on September 8, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiff asked a judge to rule that its brand did not infringe, dilute or violate any trademark rights held by the defendant, the operator of a leading decentralized exchange. In addition, the lawsuit also asked the court to revoke the Federal Trademark Registering that covered the word "UNI."

Transparency Business's legal advisers said the core of the controversy was not consumer confusion, but timing, as the warning letter was issued just as the company was approaching a planned initial public offering.

The ultimatum timeline behind the Unicoin-Uniswap lawsuit

Court records show that the two sides engaged in months-long tug-of-war before the case entered court. The defendant's lawyers sent three separate letters requesting the plaintiff to stop using his name, transfer the domain name, and pay legal fees.

Date Progress June 3, 2026 The first letter of cessation of infringement alleged infringement, dilution, cybersquatting and unfair competition. On June 23, 2026, the plaintiff's lawyer responded and rejected all requests. The previous request was reiterated on July 17, 2026 and a deadline for reply was set. The last letter, dated August 14, 2026, warned that "all available legal remedies" would be taken. The lawsuit was filed on September 8, 2026 in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint stated that the defendant had known about the smaller company's business for more than two years before issuing any warnings, and cited a 2024 public post by its CEO Hayden Adams mentioning a rival brand as evidence.

Defendant registered trademark coverage

The indictment lists several registrations and pending applications cited in the communication:

Mark Registration Number/Application Number Status UNI 7,307,721 Registered February 20, 2024; The object challenged this time, UNISWAP 6,177,986 has been registered, covering online trading software UNISWAP 6,183,104 has been registered, covering non-downloadable exchange software unicorn designs 7,212,853 registered graphic trademark UNICHAIN 98,548,436 / 98,548,443 The pending application indictment states that "UNI" has been registered for less than five years. As a result, it has not yet become an "incontestable" trademark under federal law, making it possible to challenge its versatility.

Defense to allegations of infringement

According to the indictment, the Unicoin-Uniswap lawsuit raised multiple grounds that the underlying infringement charge should not be established:

• The prefix "uni" comes from Latin, meaning "one" and appears in thousands of unrelated trademarks, including UPS, Unilever and Uniqlo.
• More than 1,000 valid U.S. Trademark Registering already contain this prefix, and multiple unrelated cryptocurrency tokens are also traded using the same code.
• The domain name in dispute was registered in 2003 and 2015 respectively, both before the competitor's exchange existed.
• One party's brand describes a single digital asset, while the other party's trademarks cover exchange software and governance tools and fall into different product categories.
• The defendant allegedly waited more than two years after learning of the existence of the smaller company before filing an objection, a delay that the indictment said constituted "laches."

Domain Names and Core Claims

In addition to seeking a non-infringement declaration, the Unicoin-Uniswap lawsuit also seeks relief related to early letters. Previous requirements included transferring domain names for two websites, providing complete revenue accounts and covering legal fees.

The new indictment asks the court to dismiss the claims and ruled that domain name use did not violate the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA). It also asked the judge to declare the case "exceptional" and award the plaintiff's own legal costs, including a jury trial requirement.

Subsequent Developments in the Litigation

Defendant (formally known as Universal Navigation Inc.) As of the writing of this article, no public response has been issued. With the smaller party taking the lead, the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York will now decide the underlying issues rather than having the large exchanges file separate lawsuits on their own timetable.

A core question facing the court was whether a two-letter prefix derived from a dictionary was too generic to be an exclusive trademark, given that many unrelated items were already traded using the same code. Both parties are expected to proceed in accordance with standard federal litigation procedures, including formal defense and eventuality discovery stages.

Conclusion

Unicoin-Uniswap litigation is testing the validity of a single trademark "UNI". The result will determine whether Unicoin keeps its brand and domain names undisturbed or must be modified under court order, and may also reshape the strength and scope of Uniswap Labs 'future similar claims against other UNI-named projects.

YMYL Disclaimer

This document is for reference only and does not constitute legal or financial advice. It reflects statements made in publicly filed complaints on which the court has not yet ruled. For further guidance, consult official court records or legal professionals.