The rise of blockchain technology and digital assets has brought virtual currencies—commonly known as cryptocurrencies—into the global spotlight. As these digital forms of value continue to evolve, so do the legal questions surrounding them. One pressing issue is whether the names of virtual currencies can be registered as trademarks, particularly in jurisdictions like China where regulatory scrutiny is intense.
This article explores the evolving landscape of trademark registration for cryptocurrency-related names, focusing on recent shifts in examination practices, legal interpretations, and the implications for innovators in the blockchain space.
The Early Days: Bitcoin and Ethereum Set Precedents
When Bitcoin first emerged, it introduced not just a new financial instrument but also a new category of intellectual property considerations. Over time, major cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin, Ethereum (Ether), Litecoin, and Ripple (XRP) have successfully secured trademark protection in various jurisdictions. In China, many of these marks were registered under Class 36, which covers financial services, monetary affairs, and online payment systems.
These early approvals signaled a degree of openness from trademark authorities toward recognizing cryptocurrency names as protectable brands—provided they didn’t conflict with existing marks or public policy.
👉 Discover how leading digital asset platforms navigate global trademark strategies.
A Shift in Examination Standards
However, over the past year, a noticeable shift has occurred in China’s approach to trademark applications containing the Chinese character “币” (pronounced bì, meaning “coin” or “currency”). Applications featuring terms like “美币” (Mei Bi, implying “U.S. Coin”) or “欧币” (Ou Bi, “Euro Coin”) are now routinely rejected by the China Trademark Office (CTMO).
There are two primary grounds for rejection:
- Likelihood of Confusion with Fiat Currencies: Names that resemble established government-issued currencies—such as associating “美币” with the U.S. dollar (“美元”)—are considered potentially misleading and may create adverse social impact, violating Article 10 of the Chinese Trademark Law.
- Misleading Consumers About Legal Status: For purely digital or decentralized currencies, examiners argue that using “币” implies the existence of an officially recognized monetary instrument, which could mislead the public into believing these tokens have legal tender status.
While the first rationale is generally accepted—protecting consumers from confusion with real-world currencies—the second remains controversial.
Policy vs. Legal Recognition: Clarifying the Distinction
A key misunderstanding lies in conflating the illegality of cryptocurrency trading with the non-existence or illegitimacy of virtual currencies themselves.
Since September 2017, Chinese regulators—including the People’s Bank of China and other ministries—have issued directives banning financial institutions from handling cryptocurrency transactions and prohibiting initial coin offerings (ICOs). These measures were designed to curb speculative trading, fraud, and money laundering risks associated with unregulated exchanges.
But crucially, a ban on trading does not equate to a denial of ownership or property rights.
This distinction was affirmed in a landmark ruling by the Beijing Haidian People’s Court in August 2025—the first judicial decision addressing a cryptocurrency dispute in China. In the case, Mr. Feng purchased Bitcoin through OKCoin and encountered issues withdrawing Bitcoin Cash. After failed negotiations with the platform operator, Beijing Lekuda Network Technology Co., Ltd., he filed a lawsuit.
The court ruled that:
“Virtual commodities such as Bitcoin are transactional subjects under the Contract Law and possess ‘civil interest’ worthy of legal protection. Individuals may lawfully hold such assets but must bear associated risks.”
It further clarified that while conversion between virtual currencies and RMB is prohibited, and financial institutions cannot price goods or services in crypto, private ownership and contractual rights related to digital assets are still recognized.
Implications for Trademark Registration
If virtual currencies are acknowledged as holding civil interest—a form of legally protectable value—then their names should not be automatically dismissed as “non-objective” or fictitious. Denying trademark protection solely because a currency isn’t state-issued contradicts this judicial reasoning.
In fact, allowing trademark registration serves several legitimate purposes:
- Prevents consumer confusion in emerging markets
- Protects brand identity for blockchain projects
- Encourages innovation by securing IP rights
Of course, this doesn’t mean all crypto-related names should be approved. Marks that are deceptive, generic, or violate other provisions (e.g., promoting illegal activities) remain properly subject to refusal.
But blanket rejections based solely on the inclusion of “币” fail to account for context, usage intent, and evolving legal understanding.
👉 Explore how compliant blockchain ventures secure intellectual property rights globally.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q: Can I trademark a name like "Ethereum Gold" in China?
A: It depends. If the name suggests a connection to official currency or misleads consumers about its status, it may be rejected. However, if used in a clear, non-deceptive way within blockchain-related services, it might pass examination with proper classification.
Q: Why are some cryptocurrency names approved while others are rejected?
A: Approval hinges on whether the name creates confusion with legal tender, implies state backing, or violates public order. Established names like Bitcoin were registered before stricter enforcement began.
Q: Does China recognize cryptocurrency as legal property?
A: Yes. While trading is restricted, courts have recognized cryptocurrencies as holding "civil interest," meaning they are treated as assets eligible for legal protection in disputes.
Q: Is using "coin" or "currency" in a brand name always problematic?
A: Not necessarily. The key is context. Descriptive use in tech or software categories may be acceptable if no confusion with fiat money arises.
Q: What classes are most relevant for crypto-related trademarks?
A: Class 36 (financial services), Class 9 (software, apps), Class 42 (blockchain development), and Class 35 (online marketplace services) are common choices.
Q: Can a foreign company register a crypto-related trademark in China?
A: Yes, provided the application complies with local laws and does not imply unauthorized financial services.
Toward a More Nuanced Approach
Going forward, trademark offices should adopt a more balanced framework—one that respects regulatory boundaries without stifling innovation. This includes:
- Differentiating between trading activity and asset recognition
- Assessing each application based on distinctiveness, context, and consumer perception
- Aligning administrative practice with judicial precedents
As blockchain technology matures, so must the legal infrastructure supporting it. Denying trademark rights based on outdated assumptions undermines both legal consistency and technological progress.
👉 Learn how next-generation digital finance platforms build trusted brands across borders.
Conclusion
Virtual currency names can—and in many cases should—be registrable as trademarks, especially when they serve genuine branding functions without misleading consumers. The growing judicial recognition of digital assets as having civil value strengthens this position.
While regulatory caution is understandable, trademark law must evolve alongside technological reality. A fair, consistent, and legally coherent approach will benefit innovators, users, and the broader digital economy.
Core keywords naturally integrated throughout: virtual currency, trademark registration, cryptocurrency, China Trademark Office, Bitcoin, Ethereum, civil interest, Class 36.