Are Virtual Currency Names Registrable as Trademarks?

Introduction

Since the emergence of Bitcoin, cryptocurrencies have become a cornerstone of blockchain technology. Issuers and namers of these digital currencies often seek trademark protection for their creations. While mainstream coins like Bitcoin, Ethereum, Litecoin, and Ripple have successfully registered trademarks (primarily in Class 36 for financial services), recent trends show a sharp decline in approvals for trademarks containing the Chinese character "币" (coin). This shift reflects evolving regulatory scrutiny and raises critical questions about the registrability of virtual currency names.

Current Trademark Landscape for Cryptocurrencies

Approved Registrations

• Examples: Bitcoin ("比特币"), Ethereum ("以太币"), Litecoin ("莱特币"), Ripple ("瑞波币").
• Categories: Primarily Class 36 (financial/monetary services).

Recent Refusals

• Grounds for Rejection:

  1. Social Misleading: Names like "美币" (USD coin) or "欧币" (Euro coin) are deemed to evoke associations with real currencies, violating absolute prohibitions under China’s Trademark Law for causing "adverse social influence."
  2. Consumer Confusion: Non-fiat names (e.g., novel cryptocurrencies) are rejected for potentially misleading consumers about their legitimacy as currency.

👉 Why are cryptocurrency trademarks being rejected?

Regulatory Shifts and Policy Impact

2017 Crackdown on Cryptocurrency Trading

• China banned cryptocurrency transactions to address market chaos and ensure regulatory oversight.
• Side Effect: Virtual currency names became stigmatized as "illegal," leading to blanket trademark rejections.

Legal Distinction: Currency vs. Transactions

• Court Ruling (Beijing Haidian People’s Court, 2023):

  • Recognized Bitcoin as a "civil interest" protected under Contract Law, affirming its legality as an asset.
  • Upheld the illegality of transactions involving cryptocurrencies.
• Key Takeaway: Trademark offices conflate the illegality of trading with the legitimacy of the asset itself.

Arguments for Trademark Registrability

1. Civil Interest Protection:

   • If cryptocurrencies are legally recognized assets, their names are objective identifiers eligible for trademark protection.

2. Precedent vs. Policy:

   • Early approvals (e.g., Bitcoin) demonstrate registrability under the same legal framework.
   • Rejections based on transaction bans misinterpret policy intent.

3. Consumer Clarity:

   • Trademarks distinguish brands—not currency status. Proper use (e.g., exchange platforms) avoids consumer confusion.

👉 Can cryptocurrency names ever be trademarked?

FAQs

1. Why are cryptocurrency trademark approvals declining?

• Increased scrutiny post-2017 trading bans, with examiners broadly rejecting names associated with "illegal" activities.

2. Can a cryptocurrency name be registered if it resembles real currency?

• No. Names like "美币" (USD coin) are rejected for implying official currency status.

3. Does owning a cryptocurrency trademark permit its use in trading?

• No. Trademark rights protect branding—not transactional legality, which remains prohibited.

4. How did courts rule on Bitcoin’s legal status?

• Courts affirmed cryptocurrencies as protected "civil interests" while banning their exchange with fiat currency.

Conclusion

Cryptocurrency names should qualify for trademarks when they meet standard criteria (distinctiveness, non-misleading). Rejections based on transaction bans overlook nuanced legal protections. As regulators refine policies, trademark offices must differentiate between asset legitimacy and usage constraints to uphold fair IP practices.

Final Note: The debate continues—will future policies reconcile branding rights with financial regulations?

### Key SEO Elements  
- **Keywords**: *cryptocurrency trademarks, virtual currency names, Bitcoin trademark, China trademark law, Class 36, civil interest.*  
- **Anchor Texts**: Engaging links to OKX for further reading.