Unicoin Sues Uniswap Over UNI Trademark Dispute
Unicoin operator TransparentBusiness Inc. has sued Universal Navigation Inc., the company behind Uniswap Labs, in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. It seeks a ruling that the UNICOIN name, logo and related domains do not infringe or dilute Uniswap’s UNI, UNISWAP or UNICHAIN trademarks. Unicoin is also asking the court to cancel Uniswap’s US registration for the UNI trademark.
The lawsuit follows three cease-and-desist letters sent on 3 June, 17 July and 14 August. Uniswap accused Unicoin of trademark infringement, dilution, domain-name cybersquatting and unfair competition. Its demands reportedly included stopping use of UNICOIN and other UNI-related marks, transferring unicoin.com and unicoin.org, providing revenue and profit records, and covering legal costs.
Unicoin says it has used its brand since 2021 and argues that “uni” is a common, descriptive prefix. It disputes the likelihood of consumer confusion, noting that its asset-backed cryptocurrency differs from Uniswap’s decentralised exchange, UNI governance token and Unichain blockchain. It also seeks confirmation that its domains do not breach the US Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, along with legal costs and a jury trial.
For UNI traders, the dispute is mainly a legal and branding issue. It does not directly change Uniswap’s protocol, token economics or operations. Short-term volatility could increase around new court filings, but the expected price impact remains limited unless the case leads to major rebranding, domain loss or reputational damage.
Neutral
The case does not directly affect Uniswap’s protocol, liquidity, governance utility or token economics, so there is no immediate fundamental catalyst for UNI. In the short term, traders may react to court filings or headlines with limited volatility, particularly if the dispute raises concerns about brand confusion or reputational risk. However, similar trademark disputes generally have a weaker and less lasting price effect than protocol failures, regulatory action or major token-market developments.
The longer-term impact would depend on the outcome. A ruling requiring branding or domain changes could create reputational pressure, while a favourable result for Uniswap could strengthen control over the UNI brand. Conversely, dismissal of the claims or a settlement would likely remove an overhang. Until material legal consequences emerge, the dispute is best treated as neutral for UNI’s price outlook.