Unicoin Takes Trademark Dispute to Court
TransparentBusiness Inc., which operates under the Unicoin name, has filed a lawsuit against Universal Navigation Inc., doing business as Uniswap Labs, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The case, filed on Sept. 8, 2026, is centered on a trademark dispute involving the names UNICOIN, UNI, UNISWAP and UNICHAIN. Court records identify the case as a trademark action under the Lanham Act.
Unicoin is asking the court to declare that its UNICOIN mark does not infringe or dilute the marks claimed by Uniswap. The company is also seeking cancellation of Uniswap’s U.S. trademark registration for UNI.
Dispute Escalated Through Three Demand Letters
According to the complaint, the legal dispute began before the lawsuit was filed. Unicoin says counsel representing Uniswap sent three demand letters on June 3, July 17 and Aug. 14.
The letters allegedly accused Unicoin of trademark infringement, trademark dilution, cybersquatting and unfair competition. The complaint says Uniswap demanded that Unicoin stop using UNICOIN and other marks containing “UNI.”
The demands also reportedly extended to Unicoin’s internet domains. According to the complaint, Uniswap asked the company to transfer the unicoin.com and unicoin.org domains, provide an accounting of revenue and profits and reimburse legal expenses.
Uniswap Labs' own trademark guidelines confirm that UNI, UNISWAP and UNISWAP LABS are among its trademarks and state that the company enforces its trademark rights.
Unicoin Challenges Its Domain Names Being Cybersquatting
The lawsuit also addresses Unicoin’s domain names.
Unicoin is asking for a declaration that unicoin.com and unicoin.org do not violate the federal Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act. The company is therefore seeking clarity from the court over whether its domain registrations and use of the UNICOIN name conflict with Uniswap’s claimed rights.
The issue is significant because the dispute goes beyond the similarity between two names. The complaint places the companies’ respective trademark claims, domain names and commercial activities before the same federal court.
At this stage, the allegations contained in Unicoin’s complaint are claims made by the plaintiff. The court has not ruled on whether Unicoin infringes or dilutes Uniswap’s trademarks.
Lawsuit Comes Ahead of Unicoin Token Launch
The timing of the lawsuit is also notable. Unicoin lists Sept. 28, 2026, as the public launch date for its UNCN token on its website.
That places the legal dispute only a few weeks before the planned launch. The complaint therefore comes at a point when Unicoin is preparing to introduce its token and expand its broader crypto ecosystem.
Unicoin describes itself as a rewards-focused crypto network and says its SafeBets product is an initial use case for the network. Its website currently lists the Sept. 28 public launch date for the project.
Uniswap Remains a Major DeFi Trading Venue
The lawsuit involves one of the best-known names in decentralized finance.
At the time referenced in the original report, DeFiLlama ranked Uniswap first among decentralized exchanges by 24-hour trading volume, with more than $3.9 billion in volume. Current DeFiLlama data continues to show Uniswap at the top of its DEX rankings, although the live figure changes over time.
Uniswap’s position in decentralized trading makes its trademarks particularly significant within the broader crypto industry. The company's trademark guidelines cover both UNI and UNISWAP and set rules for how those marks can be used by other businesses and projects.
For Unicoin, the central question is whether the UNICOIN name can coexist with Uniswap's claimed trademark rights without creating infringement, dilution or other legal issues.
What Happens Next in the Unicoin-Uniswap Case?
The lawsuit now moves into the federal court process, where Uniswap Labs will have an opportunity to respond to the claims.
The case was filed as TransparentBusiness, Inc. v. Universal Navigation Inc., case number 1:2026cv07703, in the Southern District of New York. The docket lists TransparentBusiness as the plaintiff and Universal Navigation Inc., doing business as Uniswap Labs, as the defendant.
The eventual outcome could determine whether Unicoin can continue using the UNICOIN mark and its related domains without restrictions from Uniswap Labs. It could also address Unicoin’s request to cancel the U.S. UNI trademark registration.
Uniswap had not provided a response to the lawsuit in the material reviewed for this article. Any response from the company, along with future court filings, could provide additional context on its trademark claims and the remedies it is seeking.
For now, the dispute puts two crypto-related brands with similar naming elements into a federal trademark battle just weeks before Unicoin’s planned UNCN public launch.
