Unicoin Asks Federal Court to Cancel Uniswap’s UNI Trademark

Unicoin has asked a federal court in New York to declare that its UNICOIN brand does not infringe Uniswap’s marks and to cancel Uniswap’s U.S. trademark registration for UNI. The filing puts a familiar crypto habit—compressing a project’s identity into three or four letters—inside a conventional trademark case.

The case is TransparentBusiness, Inc. v. Universal Navigation Inc., No. 1:26-cv-07703, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The public docket shows that TransparentBusiness filed its complaint on September 8, 2026, naming Universal Navigation Inc., which does business as Uniswap Labs. It also shows a summons request, corporate disclosure and trademark notice filed the same day.

What Unicoin says triggered the lawsuit

TransparentBusiness operates under the Unicoin name. According to a report describing the complaint, Unicoin says Uniswap’s lawyers sent demand letters on June 3, July 17 and August 14. The letters allegedly accused Unicoin of trademark infringement, dilution, cybersquatting and unfair competition.

The complaint says the demands went beyond changing a token label. Uniswap allegedly sought an end to Unicoin’s use of UNICOIN and other “UNI”-formative marks, transfer of the unicoin.com and unicoin.org domains, an accounting of revenue and profits, reimbursement of legal fees and other relief. Unicoin now wants the court to declare that its marks do not infringe or dilute the claimed UNI, UNISWAP and UNICHAIN marks, and that its domains do not violate the federal anti-cybersquatting law.

Those are Unicoin’s descriptions of private letters and legal claims. Uniswap has not yet filed a response visible on the public docket cited above, so its defenses—and whether it contests that characterization—are not established there.

The cancellation request is narrower than it sounds

A successful cancellation request would affect a federal trademark registration; it would not erase a token, revoke smart contracts or transfer control of a decentralized exchange. Federal law gives courts authority to determine the right to registration and order the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to cancel a registration in a case involving a registered mark. That power appears in 15 U.S.C. § 1119.

The USPTO’s records identify Universal Navigation Inc. with the UNI mark under serial number 90722327. The lawsuit asks a district judge to test the registration and the competing uses under trademark law. It does not by itself suspend the registration, and filing a complaint is not the same as winning cancellation.

Unicoin’s reported theory is that “uni” is widely used and not distinctive enough to justify the reach Uniswap allegedly claimed in its letters. Uniswap can answer that the relevant question is not whether a prefix exists elsewhere, but whether consumers are likely to be confused in the specific markets, channels and presentation at issue. Which evidence matters will depend on the pleadings, any response, the registration record and later proof—not on how crypto traders informally use the three-letter ticker.

A company brand is not the protocol

The defendant is Universal Navigation Inc., not “the blockchain” and not every person who uses Uniswap smart contracts. That distinction matters because the Uniswap name spans several layers: a company, web and wallet products, an open protocol and a governance token.

Uniswap Labs makes the separation explicit in its terms of service, last modified July 28, 2026. The company identifies itself as Universal Navigation Inc. and says its interface is distinct from the Uniswap Protocol, which it describes as smart contracts deployed on public blockchains. Whatever happens to the UNI registration, the immediate dispute is between two corporate parties over source-identifying names and domains.

That line is easy to blur in crypto because one short string can perform several jobs. “UNI” can identify a registered mark, a token ticker, governance participation or a casual reference to the broader Uniswap ecosystem. Trademark law does not automatically treat those uses as interchangeable. The case may therefore turn on ordinary evidence—priority, distinctiveness, market proximity and likely confusion—even though the products are built around decentralized networks.

What happens next

The next meaningful public step should be proof that the defendant was served, an appearance by counsel, an answer, or a motion addressing the complaint. The court could also set an initial conference and case-management deadlines. Until one of those events appears, the docket is evidence that a dispute has begun, not evidence that either side’s legal theory has prevailed.

Three points are worth watching:

• How broadly Uniswap describes its rights. The alleged letters targeted several “UNI”-formative names and two domains; a filed response could clarify whether Uniswap maintains that full scope.
• How Unicoin supports cancellation. A complaint can request cancellation, but the plaintiff will need a legally sufficient basis and evidence.
• Whether the parties narrow the fight. Naming rules, disclaimers, product presentation or settlement could resolve part of the dispute without a final judgment on every claim.

The case arrives as U.S. crypto companies increasingly have to separate protocol governance, company operations and regulated products. That same separation sits behind the Senate’s emerging approach to control tests for decentralized finance, although this lawsuit concerns trademark law rather than market-structure regulation.

Frequently asked questions

Did a court cancel Uniswap’s UNI trademark?

No. Unicoin asked for cancellation in a complaint filed September 8, 2026. The public docket reviewed on September 13 showed opening filings but no decision on the merits.

Is Uniswap suing Unicoin?

The public federal case was initiated by TransparentBusiness, operating as Unicoin, against Universal Navigation Inc., operating as Uniswap Labs. Unicoin says it filed after receiving three demand letters from Uniswap’s counsel. A demand letter is not itself a filed lawsuit.

Would cancellation affect the UNI token?

Cancellation of a federal trademark registration would concern registration rights in a mark. It would not technically delete the UNI token or shut down the Uniswap Protocol. Commercial naming and marketing consequences would depend on the court’s eventual orders and the parties’ conduct.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, financial or investment advice.