Unicoin sues Uniswap Labs, seeks to cancel UNI registration
Reported by Cointelegraph · AI-assisted summary by ChikoCorp AI News Desk
AI-generated summary based on the linked source; not independently verified. This is not investment advice. Verify market-moving details at the original publisher before acting. See our editorial policy, AI content policy, and financial disclaimer.
Summary
TransparentBusiness Inc., operating as Unicoin, sued Universal Navigation Inc., operating as Uniswap Labs, in the Southern District of New York. Unicoin seeks declarations that its UNICOIN mark does not infringe or dilute Uniswap's claimed marks and asks the court to cancel the US trademark registration for UNI. The lawsuit responds to Uniswap’s counsel sending multiple demand letters accusing Unicoin of trademark infringement, dilution, cybersquatting, and unfair competition.
Why it matters
The source does not explicitly state the broader impact of this legal dispute. However, it involves prominent entities in the crypto space with Uniswap ranked first among decentralized exchanges by 24-hour volume, which could have significance for branding and market presence.
Key context
Uniswap Labs sent three demand letters between June and August 2023 threatening legal action over Unicoin’s use of UNI-formative marks, demanding domain transfers and reimbursement of legal fees. Unicoin plans a public launch for its UNCN token on Sept. 28, shortly after the lawsuit was filed. The complaint also contests Uniswap’s claims under the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act.
Key numbers and entities
The lawsuit involves TransparentBusiness Inc. (Unicoin), Universal Navigation Inc. (Uniswap Labs), and their respective marks: UNICOIN, UNI, UNISWAP, and UNICHAIN. Uniswap's protocol is ranked first among decentralized exchanges by 24-hour volume at over $3.9 billion, according to DeFiLlama.
What remains unclear
The source does not provide Uniswap Labs' response to the lawsuit. Details on the court’s timeline or likelihood of hearing the case are not included, nor are specifics about the trademark registrations or evidence supporting either party’s claims.