The Bitcoin "trademark" dispute causes chaos! Global products forced into delisting, court's final ruling issued.

A Spaniard registered the iconic orange and white “₿” Bitcoin trademark in 2025 and filed infringement complaints against e-commerce platforms such as Amazon and Etsy, leading to the delisting of Bitcoin-themed products worldwide. However, the Bilbao Commercial Court in Spain ruled in 2024, and the appellate court upheld the original ruling in May 2025, clearly determining that the Bitcoin logo is a “public industrial symbol.”

“Trademark Cockroach” A single application, global product numbers delisted in hours

(Source: WIPO)

The iconic orange background white “₿” logo of Bitcoin has recently become the center of a trademark dispute. An individual from Spain registered the trademark of this design this year and filed infringement complaints against multiple e-commerce platforms. According to records from the WIPO Global Brand Database, this registration has been cited by platforms like Amazon and Etsy, triggering automatic delisting procedures.

Multiple sellers have stated on Reddit and e-commerce forums that the Bitcoin-themed products they were selling, including T-shirts, accessories, and collectibles, were delisted within hours of receiving copyright infringement notices. An American seller described: “I have been selling Bitcoin-themed T-shirts on Amazon for three years without any issues. But last week, I suddenly received a notice that all my products were removed within hours, and my store rating was also affected.”

The reason Amazon and Etsy act quickly is due to their “brand registration system” which allows rights holders with government-approved trademarks to issue global infringement complaints with one click. As long as the registered country falls within the recognized scope (including Spain and the EU), the platform will directly remove the relevant products. If sellers wish to appeal, they must submit a counter-notice and specific legal documents, making the process lengthy and tedious. Although this “delisting first, review later” mechanism protects legitimate trademark holders, it also provides room for malicious applicants to abuse the system.

The sudden wave of delisting has caught many merchants off guard. Some users pointed out that even in markets outside of Spain, such as the United States and Japan, they are similarly affected. Since the system does not distinguish regional jurisdiction, a trademark application from a single country can trigger automatic bans worldwide, leading to the phenomenon of “local registration, global suppression” once again sparking institutional controversy. A Japanese seller stated, “My products are mainly sold in the Asian market, completely unrelated to Spain, yet they are still delisted. This one-size-fits-all approach is completely unreasonable.”

Spanish courts have precedent that the Bitcoin symbol is public property

Ironically, the Spanish applicant may not have a legal footing at all. According to a ruling by the Commercial Court No. 2 of Bilbao, Spain, in 2024, the Bitcoin logo and text are considered “public industry symbols,” and no individual or company can claim ownership over them. This ruling was formally upheld by the Provincial Court of Bizkaia in May 2025, explicitly stating that the Bitcoin logo is a community asset, and claiming exclusive rights constitutes “malicious conduct.”

The court believes that Bitcoin has been an open-source protocol and a result of public contributions since its inception, and is not created or protected by any specific legal entity. Any attempts to monopolize this symbol violate Article 5 of the Spanish Trademark Law regarding “non-exclusive public symbols.” In other words, even if someone successfully registers it with the trademark office, their exclusive rights can still be revoked by the court.

This ruling is of landmark significance. It establishes the legal status of cryptocurrency symbols as “public cultural assets,” similar to the dollar sign “$” or the euro sign “€,” which anyone can freely use without restrictions from trademark monopolies. The court specifically emphasized in its ruling that the decentralized nature of Bitcoin means that it does not belong to any single entity, and its visual identity should naturally remain open.

However, due to the lengthy administrative procedures of the Spanish Patent and Trademark Office (OEPM), the registration data remains temporarily retained in the system, causing the platform to still regard it as a valid trademark at the technical level. The time difference between legal invalidation and registration effectiveness has become the gray area of this incident, leading to Bitcoin-related products being massively banned on the platform while the court recognizes them as “public”.

Key Points of the Spanish Court Ruling:

Public Symbol Recognition: The Bitcoin logo is a public asset created collectively by the global community.

Malicious Application Definition: Attempting to monopolize the trademark registration of the symbol constitutes malicious behavior.

Legal Effect Priority: Even if the trademark office successfully registers it, the court may still revoke its exclusive rights.

Open Source Spirit Protection: The ruling upheld the core values of Bitcoin's decentralization and open source.

System loopholes lead to disasters, platforms overly rely on formal reviews

After the incident broke out, the Bitcoin community strongly criticized the automatic blocking mechanisms of Amazon and Etsy for being overly reliant on formal reviews and ignoring substantive legal effects. A crypto developer pointed out on social media: “The court has long ruled that the logo is a public asset, but the platform allows a single country's applicant to hijack the entire ecosystem, which goes against the decentralized spirit of Bitcoin.”

The root of this systemic loophole lies in the design of the brand protection mechanism of e-commerce platforms. To quickly respond to trademark infringement complaints, the platform employs a highly automated review system. As long as the applicant can provide government-approved trademark registration proof, the system will immediately execute delisting. Although this “delist first, review later” approach protects legitimate rights and interests, it also provides an opportunity for trademark cockroaches.

According to the Spanish Trademark Office, registration eligibility is not equivalent to enforceability. If it can be proven that the application is malicious or confusing, any third party can file a cancellation or invalidation lawsuit. The relevant challenge procedures are expected to take 6 to 18 months, and several lawyers and crypto organizations are currently preparing to take action. However, for sellers who have already suffered losses, this time cost is extremely high.

A legal expert pointed out: “Trademark registration and trademark validity are two different things. Registration is merely the completion of an administrative procedure, but if it violates legal principles, the court can declare it invalid. The problem is that the platform's automated system cannot distinguish this difference, resulting in legitimate users becoming victims.”

For the platform, finding a balance between global brand protection and the interests of the open source community has become a major challenge. Industry observations indicate that without a transnational coordination mechanism in the future, any individual could initiate a global infringement blockade simply by registering a local trademark, which could have irreversible effects on public symbols and cultural assets. This “one country registration, global ban” model seems particularly absurd in the era of globalization and e-commerce.

Community counterattack and platform silence, institutional reform is imminent

The Bitcoin community has begun organizing counteractions. Several cryptocurrency legal aid organizations have announced that they will provide free legal support to assist affected sellers in filing counter-notices. A temporary organization named “Bitcoin Logo Defense Alliance” has been established to coordinate legal challenges and platform communications globally.

Community members are also discussing more fundamental solutions. Some have suggested officially registering the Bitcoin logo as a “defensive trademark,” held by a non-profit organization that commits to never enforcing it, thereby preventing any commercial entity from attempting to monopolize it. This practice has precedents in the open-source software field, such as the Linux Foundation holding the Linux trademark but allowing anyone to use it freely.

As of now, both Amazon and Etsy have not officially responded to whether they will adjust their policies. Industry insiders speculate that the platforms may be evaluating legal risks and technical feasibility. An e-commerce analyst stated, “It is unlikely that the platforms will completely abandon automated reviews, but they may introduce more manual verification processes, especially for symbols that clearly belong to the public domain.”

This incident has also sparked a reflection on the trademark system itself. In the era of digitalization and globalization, the traditional territorial trademark system seems increasingly outdated. When a symbol has global cultural significance, should there be a higher-level coordination mechanism to prevent local registrations from having global impacts? This is a question that regulatory authorities and international organizations need to consider.