In recent years, blockchain technology has taken the digital world by storm. From cryptocurrency transactions to decentralized applications, its influence spans industries and borders. But a pivotal legal question has emerged: Can the word blockchain itself be trademarked? And if so, does that give one company the exclusive right to use it—potentially blocking others from using the very term that defines the industry?
A landmark case that brought this issue into sharp focus is Blockchain Luxembourg v. Paymium, filed in the U.S. in 2018. This trademark dispute didn’t just involve logos or branding—it challenged the boundaries between generic terms and intellectual property rights in the fast-evolving world of digital finance.
The Plaintiff: Blockchain Luxembourg and Its Trademark Claims
Blockchain Luxembourg S.A., along with its U.S. subsidiary (collectively referred to as "Blockchain"), operates one of the world’s largest digital asset platforms. The company boasts over 100 million transactions, more than $200 billion in transaction value, and serves 28 million customers across 140 countries. It provides secure digital wallets, financial services, and trusted infrastructure for cryptocurrency users worldwide.
Crucially, Blockchain clarifies that it does not claim ownership over the lowercase term "blockchain". That word, they argue, remains a generic descriptor for the underlying technology—akin to how “internet” or “email” cannot be monopolized by a single entity.
However, Blockchain asserts exclusive rights to the uppercase BLOCKCHAIN as a trademark. Since 2011, the company has used variations such as:
- BLOCKCHAIN (since 2011)
- BLOCKCHAIN.INFO (since 2011)
- BLOCKCHAIN.COM (since 2013)
- BLOCKCHAIN MERCHANT (since 2012)
- BLOCKCHAIN PRINCIPAL STRATEGIES (since 2018)
These marks are used in connection with digital wallet services, mobile apps, online platforms, and financial tools.
👉 Discover how leading blockchain platforms protect their brand identity and user trust.
The company also began using a stylized BLOCKCHAIN design mark in January 2017, featuring bold uppercase letters, often associated with a distinctive visual layout. This mark was officially registered in the U.S. on July 10, 2018 (Registration No. 5,512,148), covering services in Classes 9, 35, 36, and 42—including software downloads, cloud databases, financial information systems, and temporary access to cryptocurrency management tools.
Notably, during the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) review process in 2018, Blockchain agreed to disclaim exclusive rights to the word "blockchain" apart from its specific stylized form. This concession acknowledged that the term alone is descriptive—but reinforced the argument that the stylized, capitalized version had acquired secondary meaning through widespread use.
The Defendant: Paymium and the Use of blockchain.io
On the other side of the lawsuit stands Paymium, a French fintech firm offering digital currency services under brands like PAYMIUM and BITCOIN CENTRAL. In 2018, Paymium launched a new branding initiative centered around blockchain.io, using both the domain name and a stylized logo featuring “blockchain” in lowercase with ".io" appended.
This move caught Blockchain’s attention—not just because of the similarity in names, but because Paymium used the branding to promote an Initial Coin Offering (ICO). Blockchain alleged that this created consumer confusion, implying an affiliation or endorsement that didn’t exist.
Moreover, Blockchain accused Paymium of making false statements—specifically, claiming that its ICO was "registered" with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). While Paymium had engaged with the SEC for review purposes, no formal registration was filed. The court later ruled this did not constitute actionable misrepresentation.
Legal Defense: Is "Blockchain" a Generic Term?
Paymium fought back with a strong legal argument: "blockchain" is a generic term, like "cloud computing" or "smartphone," and therefore unprotectable as a standalone trademark. They pointed out that even Blockchain Luxembourg had acknowledged this by disclaiming exclusive rights to the word during USPTO proceedings.
Furthermore, Paymium argued that Blockchain’s prior use of "blockchain" in domains like blockchain.info and blockchain.com was merely descriptive usage—meant to inform users about the nature of their services—not as a brand identifier.
👉 Explore how companies navigate intellectual property in decentralized ecosystems.
But Blockchain countered that its consistent use of uppercase BLOCKCHAIN, combined with massive global exposure, had created a distinct secondary meaning in consumers’ minds. When people see “BLOCKCHAIN,” they associate it not with the technology generically—but with their platform.
They also emphasized visual and commercial similarities between their stylized mark and Paymium’s blockchain.io logo, arguing that both target similar audiences in overlapping markets.
Court Ruling: A Partial Victory and Ongoing Questions
In August 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a preliminary ruling on Paymium’s motion to dismiss.
The court agreed with Paymium on one key point: the claim of false SEC registration lacked merit, since Paymium had indeed submitted materials for regulatory review.
However, regarding trademark infringement, the judge ruled that questions of fact remained—particularly around:
- Whether BLOCKCHAIN had acquired secondary meaning
- Whether the two marks were confusingly similar
- Whether consumers were likely to be misled
Because these are factual issues best decided by a jury, the court allowed the trademark infringement claims to proceed.
This means the broader legal question—can a tech giant own the rights to a word central to an entire industry?—remains unresolved.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a generic technological term be trademarked?
Generally, no—but if a company uses a generic or descriptive term in a unique way (e.g., stylized font, color, or context) and builds strong consumer recognition over time, it may acquire secondary meaning, making it protectable.
What is “secondary meaning” in trademark law?
It refers to a situation where consumers associate a descriptive term not just with what the product does, but with a specific source. For example, “Apple” for computers is not about fruit—it’s about Apple Inc.
Did Blockchain win the case?
Not definitively. The court denied dismissal of the trademark claims, allowing them to go to trial. However, the false advertising claim was dismissed.
Why does this case matter beyond one company?
If upheld, Blockchain’s trademark could set a precedent allowing companies to control foundational terms in emerging technologies—raising concerns about fair competition and innovation.
Can other companies still use “blockchain”?
Yes—especially in lowercase and in descriptive contexts (e.g., “our platform uses blockchain technology”). But using it as a dominant brand element or domain name could pose legal risks.
What lessons can startups learn from this case?
Choose names carefully. Avoid relying on purely descriptive or generic terms as your core brand. Invest early in distinctive logos, designs, and consistent usage to build trademark strength.
👉 Learn how innovators protect their digital brands in competitive markets.
Final Thoughts
The Blockchain vs. Paymium case underscores a growing tension in the digital economy: how do we balance innovation and competition with brand protection?
While Blockchain’s efforts highlight legitimate concerns about consumer confusion and brand dilution, they also raise alarms about gatekeeping language in open-source and decentralized spaces.
As blockchain technology continues to evolve, so too will the legal frameworks surrounding it. For now, one thing is clear: words matter—and so does who gets to own them.
Core Keywords: blockchain trademark, BLOCKCHAIN.COM, trademark infringement, secondary meaning, generic term, intellectual property, cryptocurrency branding