On April 16, 2015, One Network Services Ltd., identified as the parent entity of OneCoin, initiated a US trademark application for the term "onecoin" with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Irina Dilkinska, then listed as One Network Services' Head of Legal and Compliance Department, formally signed the application. This effort to secure exclusive rights to the name ultimately failed, marking an early procedural misstep for the purported cryptocurrency operation.
The USPTO issued a notification on July 24, 2015, three months after the initial filing. The office identified a potential conflict with an existing trademark application for "One World One Coin." The notification warned that if the competing mark proceeded to registration, OneCoin's application faced likely refusal due to potential confusion among consumers.
OneCoin received a six-month window to file a response to the USPTO's objection. The company failed to meet this deadline. By February 2016, the period had elapsed, leading the USPTO to issue a notice of abandonment on February 19. Standard procedure allowed OneCoin another two months, until April 19, 2016, to request reinstatement of its application. No such request was filed.
The conflicting "One World One Coin" trademark application had been filed on January 5, 2015, by an Illinois attorney on behalf of Aurum Coin Ltd. Aurum Coin Ltd. presented itself as a separate cryptocurrency under development. In early 2015, OneCoin publicly claimed a "partnership" with Aurum Coin, though the specifics of this arrangement remained undisclosed. OneCoin's website at the time advertised access to both OneCoin and Aurum Gold Coins as "two of the hottest and most innovative products in the emerging crypto-currency market."
Further review of the competing application revealed additional irregularities. Aurum Coin Ltd. received a Notice of Allowance for its trademark on December 29, 2015. A Notice of Allowance typically indicates that a trademark application has cleared the examination phase, but it does not grant registration until the applicant demonstrates commercial use of the mark through a Statement of Use filing. Aurum Coin Ltd. had not yet submitted this required documentation. Its Facebook page in April 2016 suggested an Indiegogo crowdfunding campaign was still in development, coinciding with OneCoin's final deadline to save its own trademark application.
OneCoin made only one recorded move during this period. On March 25, 2016, the company filed a Revocation of Attorney notice, removing Irina Dilkinska from the application. A US-based attorney in Florida then took over representation. This action occurred less than a month before the final reinstatement deadline passed.
The abandonment meant OneCoin never secured a registered trademark for "onecoin" in the United States. Without a registered trademark, OneCoin lacked exclusive legal rights to its name in the US market. This left the company vulnerable to potential brand confusion and prevented it from pursuing legal action against any entity using a similar name. The failure to manage a routine legal filing like a trademark application contradicted OneCoin's public image as a sophisticated global financial innovator.
For victims of fraud, resources are available through government agencies like the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) at ReportFraud.ftc.gov.