- Nanolabs drags crypto platform Coinbase to court.
- Nano demands $5 million in damages from Coinbase.
- If Coinbase gets hit by another lawsuit, how will the exchange respond?
- Nanolabs claims it has been in correspondence with Coinbase since 2018.
Coinbase has once again been hit with a lawsuit, and this time, it’s by Nanolabs over a trademark infringement concerning their Nano Bitcoin Futures contract and Nano Ether Futures contract.
Nano, the creator of the digital currency NANO, has named Coinbase a defendant in a legal complaint they made over allegations of trademark infringements. In the court filing with California Northern District Court, the company reportedly said that Coinbase’s Nano Bitcoin Futures contract and Nano Ether Futures contracts products are an infringement of their trademark rights.
Nanolabs also alleged that the infringement harmed Nanolab’s economic detriment, causing its brand identity to be weakened, which resulted in damage and irreversible harm.
Nano was first given the Name Raiblocks by its Founder
Coinbase launched their Nano-branded products years after the rebrand, with Nano Bitcoin Futures being introduced in June 2022 and Nano Ether Futures following by August 2022.
Nano claims that Coinbase’s products have similar offerings to what their digital currency, NANO, offers. Alongside, a similar target audience, which Nanolabs presumes, is consumers seeking to invest and utilize a digital currency.
The brand identity is similar is a detriment to Nanolabs, who owned the trademark first. The company is also alleging that Coinbase had prior knowledge of the existence of their digital currency before they chose to launch their product under similar names, as both companies had been in contact as far back as 2018.
Nanolabs also claims that Coinbase rejected their application to list Nano on Coinbase’s platform, which is another indication of their intent to infringe on the trademark.
Also, in the court filings, Nanolabs stated that various department heads and directors, alongside associates operating in Coinbase, were aware and familiar with Nano digital currency.
Nanolabs claims that having prior knowledge of NANO should have been a pointer to Coinbase on offering products with similar names and similar features could be a cause for confusion for consumers and cause weakness in brand identity for Nanolabs.
Nano not being listed on Coinbase’s platform would only further confuse consumers. Any sighting of Coinbase’s products in their bid to search for the Nano digital currency would lead to them assuming they are the same thing.
Conclusion
Nanolabs’ primary intent for the lawsuit is to implore the court to send an injunction against Coinbase to stop them from using the trademark “Nano” for their products.
The company also seeks at least $5 million in damages and corrective advertising from Coinbase to ensure the general public knows that both products are very different.
