Unicoin Sues Uniswap Labs to Cancel UNI (UNI) Trademark Registration

Federal Complaint Filed in Manhattan

TransparentBusiness Inc., which does business under the Unicoin brand, has sued Universal Navigation Inc. — the corporate parent of Uniswap Labs — in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, escalating a branding dispute over the UNI name from private demand letters into federal litigation. The complaint, filed Tuesday, seeks a judicial declaration that the plaintiff's UNICOIN mark neither infringes nor dilutes the UNI, UNISWAP and UNICHAIN marks asserted by the corporate side of the leading decentralized exchange (DEX) protocol. The filing goes beyond pure defense: it also asks the court to cancel the US trademark registration currently held on the UNI name, the ticker of the governance token tied to the Uniswap (UNI) ecosystem. Under US trademark practice, a declaratory judgment action of this kind is typically brought by a party facing threatened enforcement that wants the dispute adjudicated on its own terms rather than waiting to be sued. By pairing its non-infringement claim with a cancellation demand, TransparentBusiness is directly challenging the federal registration that underpins Uniswap's asserted brand rights — a move that, if successful, would strip the UNI mark of the nationwide protections that come with federal registration, including the presumption of validity and access to federal remedies. The court is now being asked to decide how far brand protection around one of crypto's most recognizable tickers can reach.

Demand Letters, Domains and the UNCN Clock

The docket behind the suit traces a three-month escalation. According to the complaint, Uniswap's counsel sent three demand letters — dated June 3, July 17 and Aug. 14 — accusing Unicoin of trademark infringement, dilution, cybersquatting and unfair competition, and threatening further legal action. Those letters demanded that Unicoin stop using UNICOIN and other UNI-formative marks, hand over the unicoin.com and unicoin.org domains, provide an accounting of revenue and profits, and reimburse Uniswap's legal fees. TransparentBusiness's response, now before the court, seeks a declaration that the two blockchain domains do not violate the federal Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, the statute that penalizes bad-faith registration of domain names confusingly similar to protected marks. Timing is conspicuous: the case was filed weeks before the Sept. 28 public launch date that Unicoin lists on its website for the UNCN token, putting the litigation squarely ahead of the company's flagship brand moment. Uniswap Labs has not issued a public statement on the filing. Meanwhile, the protocol's commercial position remains intact — DEX volume rankings place Uniswap first among decentralized exchanges by 24-hour turnover, above $3.9 billion — and the automated market maker at the core of the platform continues to route trades through its liquidity pools without disruption. UNI's spot price did slip roughly 9.9% over the past 24 hours, though the decline sits within a broader market pullback rather than any protocol-specific event. Readers tracking the market in real time can follow live spot and futures prices on Gate.

UNI Trademark Cancellation in Focus

Reading the complaint itself, what stands out is the posture: a declaratory judgment action filed in the Southern District of New York that both defends UNICOIN and attacks the UNI registration head-on. Our view is that the token itself is functionally untouched — the UNI contract, its on-chain activity and governance do not depend on trademark registration — so the real stakes are brand and licensing, at a moment when Uniswap-related activity keeps expanding the name's footprint. A cancellation would also sharpen the industry's unresolved question: whether short tickers like UNI can function as protectable trademarks at all.