Unicoin Files Suit Against Uniswap Labs to Cancel UNI Registration

A company behind the Unicoin brand has filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of New York against Uniswap Labs, seeking a court ruling that its UNICOIN trademark does not infringe or dilute Uniswap’s asserted marks. TransparentBusiness Inc., which does business as Unicoin, is also asking the court to cancel a US trademark registration for UNI.

The dispute centers on trademark claims and alleged brand misuse that Uniswap’s representatives raised through a series of demand letters sent over several months. Unicoin’s complaint, filed Tuesday, requests declarations on non-infringement and non-dilution, along with determinations related to whether Unicoin’s domain names violate US anti-cybersquatting laws.

Key takeaways

• TransparentBusiness Inc. (Unicoin) sued in New York federal court seeking declarations that UNICOIN does not infringe or dilute Uniswap’s claimed marks.
• The complaint asks the court to cancel a US trademark registration for “UNI,” which Uniswap alleges it owns or has rights to.
• Uniswap’s counsel reportedly sent three demand letters—June 3, July 17, and Aug. 14—accusing Unicoin of infringement, dilution, cybersquatting, and unfair competition.
• Unicoin is also challenging claims tied to its “unicoin.com” and “unicoin.org” domains under the federal Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act.
• The legal filing comes shortly before a listed Sept. 28 public launch date for Unicoin’s UNCN token.

Unicoin’s lawsuit targets Uniswap’s asserted trademark rights

According to Unicoin’s complaint filed in the Southern District of New York, TransparentBusiness Inc. is seeking court declarations that its UNICOIN mark does not infringe or dilute Uniswap’s claimed marks, including UNI, UNISWAP, and UNICHAIN.

The company further requests cancellation of a US trademark registration for UNI. That request is significant because it directly challenges the scope of whichever trademark rights Uniswap is asserting. If the cancellation is granted, it could narrow or remove a foundation for future enforcement arguments tied to the “UNI” branding.

The filing also asks for a legal declaration that the company’s “unicoin.com” and “unicoin.org” domains do not violate the federal Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA). That portion of the case targets whether the domains were acquired or used in a manner that meets the federal standard for cybersquatting.

Demand letters frame Uniswap’s allegations

Unicoin’s complaint states that Uniswap’s counsel issued three demand letters on June 3, July 17, and Aug. 14. In those letters, Uniswap reportedly accused Unicoin of trademark infringement, trademark dilution, cybersquatting, and unfair competition.

The demand letters, as described in the lawsuit, required several actions from Unicoin, including:

• Stopping use of “UNICOIN” and other “UNI”-formative marks.
• Transferring the “unicoin.com” and “unicoin.org” domains.
• Providing an accounting of revenue and profits.
• Reimbursing Uniswap’s legal fees.

These demands indicate Uniswap’s approach extended beyond stopping trademark use to seeking financial disclosures and fee reimbursement. That broad enforcement posture is part of why the litigation matters: court outcomes could shape how aggressively Uniswap and similar brands police overlaps in naming and web presence.

Cointelegraph reached out to Uniswap for comment regarding the lawsuit.

Why trademark cases matter in crypto branding

While the dispute is framed in legal trademark terms, it has practical implications for crypto projects because naming and domain strategy are tightly connected to user discovery, marketing, and community recognition. In markets where tokens and apps proliferate quickly, brand identifiers and web domains often become the first point of contact for users who are looking for official services, documentation, and liquidity.

In this case, Unicoin is contesting both trademark infringement and trademark dilution. In plain terms, that puts two different legal theories in play: whether Unicoin’s use of its mark is likely to cause confusion with Uniswap’s asserted marks, and whether it nonetheless harms or weakens those marks even absent direct confusion. Unicoin’s inclusion of dilution and cybersquatting claims suggests it is treating Uniswap’s enforcement threats as multi-pronged.

Investors and builders will likely watch how the court approaches similarity between the “UNI” family of terms and whether the case turns on marketplace confusion, the strength of Uniswap’s claims to the cited marks, or the specific use of the Unicoin domains.

Timing: filing before Unicoin’s listed token launch

The lawsuit was filed weeks before a Sept. 28 public launch date that Unicoin lists on its website for the UNCN token.

This timing may matter for participants evaluating execution risk and operational continuity. Token launches in crypto frequently depend on marketing, websites, and community onboarding—areas that can become collateral in trademark and domain disputes. Although the filing itself does not indicate the launch will be delayed, the presence of active federal litigation is the kind of uncertainty that can affect planning, partner relationships, and user-facing communications.

Separately, Unicoin’s competitive context can also provide background for why enforcement attention might intensify around well-known brands. At the time of writing, DeFiLlama ranked the Uniswap protocol first among decentralized exchanges by 24-hour volume, with more than $3.9 billion. A leading position in the DeFi trading stack can make brand-related enforcement more consequential, since other services may be measured against widely recognized naming and user expectations.

What to watch next in the case

The next developments to track are how Unicoin and Uniswap argue the legal standards for infringement, dilution, and ACPA-related domain issues, and whether the court addresses the requested cancellation of the UNI trademark registration. With a token launch date already on the calendar and multiple demand letters documented in the complaint, the litigation’s pace and interim rulings could determine how both sides manage branding and online presence going forward.