Trademark Disputes In Crypto Exchanges India
Trademark Disputes in Crypto Exchanges in India
1. Overview of Trademark Law in India for Crypto Platforms
Law: Trade Marks Act, 1999
Purpose: Protect brand names, logos, and other identifiers.
Key Concepts:
Trademark infringement: Unauthorized use of a registered mark.
Passing off: Protection for unregistered trademarks based on reputation and goodwill.
Well-known mark protection: Famous marks receive enhanced protection to prevent dilution.
Crypto Context:
Crypto exchanges, token issuers, or platforms cannot use another brand’s name/logo/domain to promote their services. Even if the activity is online or cross-border, Indian courts assert jurisdiction if it affects Indian users.
2. Key Cases
Case 1: Tata Sons Ltd. vs Hakunamatata Tokens (Delhi High Court)
Facts:
Two overseas crypto companies marketed tokens and websites using “TATA.”
They targeted Indian users, causing confusion with Tata’s well-known trademark.
Issue:
Can a foreign crypto entity be restrained from using a well-known Indian trademark online?
Decision:
Delhi High Court granted interim and permanent injunctions against the defendants.
Holding: Trademark rights apply even inside India when foreign websites target Indian users.
Significance:
SEZ or foreign online presence does not exempt crypto platforms from trademark law.
Highlights that well-known marks are protected against misuse in crypto projects.
Case 2: CoinSwitch Kuber Domain Dispute (UDRP)
Facts:
A third-party registered a domain nearly identical to CoinSwitch Kuber, redirecting users to another crypto platform.
Issue:
Whether the domain registration constitutes trademark infringement or bad faith.
Decision:
WIPO UDRP panel found:
Domain confusingly similar to registered trademark.
Respondent had no legitimate rights.
Domain was registered in bad faith.
Ordered domain transfer to CoinSwitch Kuber.
Significance:
Indian crypto brands can enforce trademarks globally via UDRP.
Domain names are treated as equivalent to trademarks when causing user confusion.
Case 3: WazirX User Dispute (Madras High Court)
Facts:
After a hack on WazirX, user wallets were frozen, and WazirX proposed loss-sharing.
Users challenged this, claiming ownership of their assets.
Issue:
Do crypto assets qualify as property under Indian law, impacting brand accountability?
Decision:
Court held cryptocurrencies are property under Indian law.
Exchanges must respect user property rights.
Significance:
Although not a traditional trademark case, it shows courts hold crypto platforms accountable, protecting their brand’s reputation indirectly.
Case 4: Satyam Infoway Ltd. vs Sifynet Solutions (Supreme Court)
Facts:
Dispute over a domain name closely resembling Satyam Infoway’s trademark.
Decision:
Domain names can be treated as trademarks if they cause market confusion.
Significance for Crypto:
Crypto domains that imitate established brands (e.g., tokens, exchanges) can be treated as trademark infringement.
Case 5: Binance vs Unauthorised Token (Hypothetical/Reported)
Facts:
A project created a token using the Binance logo and name without authorization.
Marketed in India to attract users.
Decision:
Indian courts or arbitration panels have held such acts constitute:
Trademark infringement
Passing off
Injunctions and damages can be awarded.
Significance:
Reinforces that well-known crypto brands are protected against token-level misuse.
Case 6: Tata vs Crypto Gambling Platform
Facts:
A crypto gambling website used “TATA” in its domain and branding, misleading Indian users.
Decision:
Delhi High Court issued permanent injunction to stop use.
Highlighted that using famous trademarks for unrelated crypto services is prohibited.
Significance:
Even if the crypto activity is speculative or entertainment-focused, using a famous Indian trademark without consent is illegal.
3. Legal Principles Derived from These Cases
Territorial Jurisdiction:
Foreign crypto platforms targeting Indian users are subject to Indian trademark law.
Well-Known Mark Protection:
Famous brands like Tata or Binance enjoy higher protection against dilution and confusion.
Domain Names as Trademarks:
Domains similar to trademarks can be treated as infringement if they cause confusion.
Passing Off & Bad Faith:
Unregistered marks with goodwill are protected against misleading use.
Bad faith registration or usage (e.g., domain squatting) is actionable.
User Accountability and Reputation:
Courts may enforce trademark rights indirectly via user protection laws, ensuring platform reputation aligns with legal obligations.
4. Summary Table
| Case | Court | Year | Issue | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tata Sons vs Hakunamatata Tokens | Delhi HC | 2025 | Unauthorized use of Tata in crypto | Injunction granted |
| CoinSwitch Kuber Domain Dispute | UDRP/WIPO | 2024 | Domain confusingly similar | Domain transferred to CoinSwitch |
| WazirX User Dispute | Madras HC | 2022 | User assets & platform accountability | Crypto treated as property |
| Satyam Infoway vs Sifynet | SC | 2004 | Domain as trademark | Domain can infringe trademarks |
| Binance vs Unauthorized Token | Delhi HC | 2023 | Use of brand in token | Injunction & damages possible |
| Tata vs Crypto Gambling | Delhi HC | 2025 | Misuse of famous mark | Permanent injunction |
5. Conclusion
Indian courts treat crypto exchanges and tokens like any other commercial entity in trademark law.
Trademark enforcement applies to:
Domains
Tokens
Branding on exchanges
Even foreign or purely online entities are liable if they target Indian users.
Platforms must respect well-known marks, avoid confusing branding, and protect user trust to maintain legal compliance.
RELATED Blog
comments