Crypto trading NanoLabs, the firm behind Nano (NANO), sued Coinbase for trademark infringement.
NanoLabs claimed trademark infringement by Coinbase’s Nano Bitcoin and Nano Ether futures contracts in a Feb. 24 filing with the California Northern District Court.
NanoLabs claims the violation caused “actual loss and irreparable harm” to its reputation and economy.”
In 2014, Colin LeMahieu founded Nano, formerly RaiBlocks. On Jan. 31, 2018, it became Nano.Years later, Coinbase issued Nano Bitcoin and Nano Ether futures contracts on June 27 and August 29, 2022, respectively.NanoLabs said Coinbase’s solutions are “derivative goods” based on Bitcoin and “identical or highly similar” to Nano.
Coinbase targets “people looking to invest in, and employ, a digital currency,” and its trademarks “are same, and […] confusingly similar” to NanoLabs’.It further argues that Coinbase had full awareness of Nano before introducing its products owing to correspondence between the two firms starting in 2018, which led to Coinbase reportedly refusing NanoLab’s application to list Nano on Coinbase “
Since October 17, 2018, Coinbase department heads, directors, and associates were familiar with the Nano Digital Currency.”
NanoLabs added that Coinbase should have recognized that providing Nano Bitcoin on the Coinbase Derivates Exchange would only confuse consumers.“Particularly because the Nano Digital Currency is not published on the Coinbase Exchange, and Defendants’ give no disclaimer, differentiation, or otherwise to educate users to this point,” the lawsuit docs stated.
NanoLabs wants an injunction to ban Coinbase from using “Nano” and similar trademarks and domain names.
NanoLabs wants at least $5 million in damages, corrective advertising from Coinbase, removal of all Nano trademark-infringing goods, and forfeiture of all Nano trademark earnings. Requested jury trial.
NanoLabs, the firm behind Nano (NANO), sued Coinbase for trademark infringement.
NanoLabs claimed trademark infringement by Coinbase’s Nano Bitcoin and Nano Ether futures contracts in a Feb. 24 filing with the California Northern District Court.
NanoLabs claims the violation caused “actual loss and irreparable harm” to its reputation and economy.”
In 2014, Colin LeMahieu founded Nano, formerly RaiBlocks. On Jan. 31, 2018, it became Nano.Years later, Coinbase issued Nano Bitcoin and Nano Ether futures contracts on June 27 and August 29, 2022, respectively.NanoLabs said Coinbase’s solutions are “derivative goods” based on Bitcoin and “identical or highly similar” to Nano.
Coinbase targets “people looking to invest in, and employ, a digital currency,” and its trademarks “are same, and […] confusingly similar” to NanoLabs’.
It further argues that Coinbase had full awareness of Nano before introducing its products owing to correspondence between the two firms starting in 2018, which led to Coinbase reportedly refusing NanoLab’s application to list Nano on Coinbase “
Since October 17, 2018, Coinbase department heads, directors, and associates were familiar with the Nano Digital Currency.”
NanoLabs added that Coinbase should have recognized that providing Nano Bitcoin on the Coinbase Derivates Exchange would only confuse consumers.“Particularly because the Nano Digital Currency is not published on the Coinbase Exchange, and Defendants’ give no disclaimer, differentiation, or otherwise to educate users to this point,” the lawsuit docs stated.
NanoLabs wants an injunction to ban Coinbase from using “Nano” and similar trademarks and domain names.NanoLabs wants at least $5 million in damages, corrective advertising from Coinbase, removal of all Nano trademark-infringing goods, and forfeiture of all Nano trademark earnings. Requested jury trial.
