Жаңылыктар

A lawsuit has emerged in the Southern District of New York, affecting one of the most famous names in the world of decentralized finance. TransparentBusiness Inc., a company operating under the Unicoin brand, has filed a complaint against Universal Navigation Inc., which operates the Uniswap Labs platform. The essence of the conflict is the rights to the trademarks UNICOIN, UNI, UNISWAP and UNICHAIN, as well as to the domains unicoin.com and unicoin.org . Unicoin wants the court to confirm that its name does not violate Uniswap's rights or undermine their uniqueness. In addition, the company is seeking the cancellation of the American registration of the UNI mark. This is already going beyond the usual naming dispute.

Before the trial, the parties exchanged claims. Uniswap lawyers wrote to Unicoin three times — on June 3, July 17 and August 14. The letters talked about rights violations, brand erosion, cybersquatting, and unfair competition. There were also court threats. The demands were clear: stop using UNICOIN and similar designations with $UNI, give up the domains, report income and cover the legal costs of Uniswap.

Unicoin does not agree with this. In her lawsuit, she asks the court to recognize that her domains do not violate the federal law against cybersquatting, and the UNICOIN token does not conflict with or weaken $UNI, UNISWAP, and UNICHAIN. That is, Unicoin is not just fighting back, but is seeking to obtain legal clarity for the peaceful use of its name in the future.

Context is also important. The Unicoin website states that the launch of the UNCN token is scheduled for September 28. The lawsuit was filed just a few weeks before that date. It seems that the company is trying to eliminate possible claims in advance so that the release of the token is not overshadowed by judicial restrictions. If Unicoin had ignored the letters, the launch would have taken place in an atmosphere of legal uncertainty. Therefore, the lawsuit looks like an attempt to resolve the issue before the public launch.

Uniswap Labs has not yet commented on the case for Cointelegraph. At the time of writing, DeFiLlama ranked Uniswap first among decentralized exchanges in terms of daily volume — over $3.9 billion. This highlights the scale of the ecosystem around UNI. The ticker is found in the token name, interfaces, documentation, and advertising. Therefore, Uniswap actively protects its rights. It is critical for her to prevent the brand from weakening and to maintain control over the designation associated with her products.

This is also important for Unicoin. The company uses a name that partially overlaps with $UNI. If the court finds a violation, the brand, domains, and possibly the launch strategy will have to be changed. If Unicoin wins, it will set a precedent for other projects whose names are similar to well-known tickers. Such coincidences are not uncommon in the cryptosphere, but not all go to court. So this case may become a guideline for future proceedings.

The lawsuit also requires a declarative decision. This means that Unicoin wants not only to fend off current claims, but also to secure confirmation for the future. The requirement to cancel the registration of $UNI is more radical. If it is satisfied, the status of the sign will change. However, this rarely happens in practice. Strong evidence is needed, for example, that the registration was obtained with violations or the sign is being used in bad faith. There are few such details in the lawsuit materials so far.