EUROPEAN UNION: Coinbase Can’t Crack bitFlyer’s Trademark

The General Court (GC) has rejected the appeal by Coinbase Inc., a leading U.S. cryptocurrency exchange, against a trademark registration by bitFlyer, Inc., a major Japanese blockchain and crypto trading platform. The dispute (Case T-46/24) concerned bitFlyer’s registration of the word mark COINBASE in the EU and whether it had been filed in bad faith.

An International Registration was obtained by bitFlyer for COINBASE designating the EU in 2016, covering a broad range of goods and services in Classes 9, 35, 36, 38, and 42. Coinbase, which had secured an earlier international registration for the same word mark, applied for a declaration of invalidity of bitFlyer’s mark in 2018 on the grounds of likelihood of confusion and bad faith under Articles 60(1)(a) and 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001.

The EUIPO Cancellation Division partially upheld the request in 2020, declaring bitFlyer’s mark invalid for overlapping services due to a likelihood of confusion—but rejected the bad-faith claim concerning the remaining classes. The Board of Appeal upheld the finding of no bad faith.

Coinbase brought the matter before the GC. In its decision on June 11, 2025, the GC found no evidence that bitFlyer acted dishonestly or intended to exploit Coinbase’s reputation. The GC emphasized the absence of direct competition, commercial links, or proof that bitFlyer had knowledge of Coinbase’s earlier use of the COINBASE mark across the EU. It also noted that the term “coinbase” is inherently weak in distinctiveness within the blockchain and cryptocurrency sectors.

The GC also dismissed Coinbase’s claim of acquired distinctiveness, holding that Coinbase had not demonstrated sufficient market penetration or brand recognition across the EU. Most evidence referenced the full brand logo or included additional visual elements.

The GC concluded that Coinbase failed to prove bad faith under Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No. 207/2009 (applicable at the time of filing). It dismissed the action in its entirety and ordered Coinbase to bear the costs.

The ruling is legally sound—but when a household name like Coinbase, among the most prominent crypto exchanges globally, is denied full control over its brand in the EU, one wonders whether the law has perfectly served the market’s reality. After all, fairness and formalism don’t always share the same blockchain.

Although every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of this article, readers are urged to check independently on matters of specific concern or interest. Law & Practice updates are published without comment from INTA except where it has taken an official position.

© 2025 International Trademark Association