Nearly 800 Trademark Applications for KRW Stablecoins Coin Tickers Serve as De Facto 'Brands' Trademark Disputes Arising from Duplicate Tickers Clarification of Exchange Policies and Regulations Needed Ahead of the KRW Stablecoin Era Recently, the domestic virtual asset (cryptocurrency) industry has been experiencing fierce competition over 'Coin Tickers.' As KRW (Korean won) stablecoins rapidly emerge as next-generation financial infrastructure, companies are hastily filing for trademark rights on virtual asset tickers to gain an edge in the market. Today, let's take a detailed look at why 'virtual asset ticker trademarks' are crucial for domestic companies and examine notable legal disputes surrounding them. Why 'Coin Tickers' Matter A 'coin ticker' is an English abbreviation representing the name of a virtual asset, allowing for quick and unique identification of assets on public exchanges. Examples include Bitcoin's 'BTC,' Ethereum's 'ETH,' and Tether's 'USDT.' Tickers serve as unique trademarks for virtual assets and symbols of project identity. In other words, coin tickers are key factors in building investor recognition in virtual assets. They represent the very first and prominent trademark value from a search and chart SEO (Search Engine Optimization) perspective, and serve as practical 'brands.' Major financial groups, big tech, and other enterprises in Korea recognize coin tickers as brands within the virtual asset industry and are competing for trademark rights on KRW stablecoin tickers to secure their market position. According to intellectual property search data from KIPRIS (Korea Intellectual Property Rights Information Service) as of the 15th, there are a total of 821 trademarks in Korea that include 'KRW', signifying the Korean won. Entities ranging from major financial holding companies, banks, securities firms, card companies, KRW market exchanges like Upbit, Bithumb, and Korbit, to fintech firms like Naver Pay, Kakao Pay, and Travel Wallet have filed for KRW stablecoin ticker trademarks by combining KRW with their own initials and slogans. Virtual Asset Ticker = Brand… Potential for Trademark Collision Disputes As the virtual asset industry rapidly expands, trademark collision cases from duplicate tickers are also on the rise. Given the decentralized nature of most blockchain networks, it is not possible to fundamentally block the issuance of virtual assets sharing the same tickers. Nevertheless, if major global cryptocurrency exchanges support trading of entirely different assets under the same ticker, it may lead to investor confusion and brand value dilution. Recently, the domestic industry has also witnessed legal disputes arising from duplicate coin tickers. Web3-based AI company Common Computer has faced the risk of losing its 'AIN' token ticker, which it has consistently used since 2018, to a new overseas project. On the 5th (local time), AI-based Web3 platform Infinity Ground entered the market with a coin ticker identical to Common Computer’s AIN. As the new project Infinity Ground was listed on Binance Alpha, the incubation platform of the world’s largest exchange, attracting investors, some exchanges unilaterally changed Common Computer’s ticker from AIN to AINETWORK and assigned the AIN ticker to Infinity Ground’s token. A representative from Common Computer pointed out, "The AI Network (AIN) is already an actively operated and well-established project, built over several years of diligent development. Using a legally registered trademark without consent and arbitrarily altering registered information is an extremely unusual act, inconceivable by common sense. Such actions betray basic responsibility and trust." Common Computer has proactively secured the 'AIN' trademark globally in preparation for such disputes. The AIN trademark is currently formally registered and in effect in Korea, the United States, Japan, and China, and trademark applications are underway in ten other countries and regions, including the European Union (EU), Hong Kong, and Taiwan. Common Computer stated, "By preemptively securing trademark rights to AIN in major global markets, we are establishing grounds to respond to legal disputes, and additionally, we are reviewing further legal measures." There have been similar cases in the past. The most notable is the 'GRAM' ticker trademark dispute between Telegram and Lantah LLC in 2018. Telegram filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against Lantah over the 'GRAM' ticker, but later voluntarily withdrew the case following the abandonment of its business. The U.S. District Court in California ordered Telegram to pay Lantah's legal fees of $625,000. In the same year, Chinese e-commerce giant Alibaba also filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against the blockchain payment platform AlibabaCoin. At that time, Alibaba claimed in the New York District Court that AlibabaCoin had unlawfully used its trademark. The New York District Court ruled that "AlibabaCoin Foundation’s use of the Alibaba trademark posed a significant likelihood of consumer confusion" and issued a preliminary injunction banning its use. Consequently, the AlibabaCoin Foundation changed its coin ticker from AlibabaCoin to 'ABBC.' Kangwook Lee, managing patent attorney at KNK Patent & Law Office, stated, "Ticker disputes in the virtual asset industry are directly related to brand value. Particularly in cases where trademark rights are not clearly established in the global market, companies or projects with higher recognition may gain an upper hand in legal disputes." He added, "As seen in the recent AIN incident, aggressive marketing by new projects may lead to unauthorized use of existing tickers, so it is essential to secure trademark rights for coin tickers to guard against such cases." Urgency for Clarification of Exchange Policies and Regulations With the dawn of the KRW stablecoin era, there are growing calls for clear exchange policies and regulatory certainty to prevent trademark disputes arising from coin tickers. Some platforms are taking proactive steps to prevent trademark disputes. The virtual asset information platform CoinGecko, for instance, specifies trademark infringement criteria in its platform policies, stating that it may delist or rename projects, symbols, or tickers that infringe on others' trademark rights. However, some trading platforms prioritizing short-term liquidity over legal stability may make arbitrary decisions in the event of trademark conflicts, favoring projects that attract more investor attention. Kangwook Lee stressed, "Even if KRW stablecoins issued domestically are launched on the global market, there is a realistic possibility that the same ticker may be listed abroad without authorization. It is now imperative to require global trademark searches and expert reviews in advance, as well as to introduce a minimum interconnection framework among major exchanges to prevent ticker conflicts." He further emphasized, "As the virtual asset market matures, the importance of brand value will only increase. Without a systematic ticker and trademark protection system in place, larger-scale disputes and investor confusion will become inevitable. At this juncture, as the KRW stablecoin market becomes more active and competition for KRW-related tickers intensifies, proactive measures are more important than ever." The Internet has relentlessly evolved for over thirty years since its popularization in the 1990s. After the limited, one-way access of Web 1.0, and the platform-centric Web 2.0 era where the masses created and shared information, we are now living in the age of Web 3.0, where, thanks to blockchain-based decentralized protocols, everyone can become a central actor of operation. 'Web 3.0 Report' aims to deliver readers accurate and in-depth insights into the blockchain market and the ongoing transition to Web 3.0.
July 15PiCK
