important notes
- The Foundation requested a voluntary domain transfer from Zcash Strategy following six complaints from the community regarding trademark infringement.
- ECC’s CEO previously requested termination of the 2019 trademark agreement and limited enforcement focused solely on fraudster protection.
- ZEC proponents remain divided over whether this measure protects the ecosystem or reflects questionable central control over the protocol.
The Zcash Foundation has initiated a trademark enforcement action against Zcash Strategy, a small digital asset treasury (DAT) company operated by accounts with fewer than 300 followers, related to its website domain (zcashstrategy.com). Controversy arose over this action, dividing the ZEC community and sparking debate over the Zcash Foundation’s trademark policy.
Between December 2nd and 3rd, X’s Zcash Strategy account posted screenshots of emails sent from the now confirmed Zcash Foundation. The shared article shows what appears to be a cease-and-desist order from the Foundation on “voluntary (domain) transfers” to prevent further escalation to the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) panelists’ ruling.
Related article: LINK price rises 20% as first Chainlink ETF launches
In a confirmation comment following the original post in which Zcash Strategy said it “deeply regrets” what happened, the Zcash Foundation explained that it had been “reported by six different Zcash community members as infringing the Zcash trademark.”
Nevertheless, the foundation now considers the post a “formal request to use the Zcash trademark,” adding that it is currently analyzing it.
Screenshot of now deleted comment by Zcash Foundation | Source:X
In August 2024, Josh Swihart, CEO of Electric Coin Co. (ECC), terminated the trademark donation and licensing agreement effective November 6, 2019 (announced in a post on the Zcash community forum) and made specific requests to the Zcash Foundation on how to properly use the trademark.
“We ask that you publicly commit to either (i) using the trademark only to protect against abuse by fraudsters or obvious mark abusers and not using it to try to control the direction of the protocol, or (ii) abandoning the trademark entirely,” Swihart said.
Last year, @jswihart withdrew @ElectricCoinCo from its trademark agreement and demanded that @ZcashFoundation “publicly commit to one of the following:”
– Trademarks should only be used to protect against abuse by fraudsters or obvious abusers of the mark, and not to attempt to govern.
— Peace Monger🛡 (@peacemongerZ) December 3, 2025
Controversy arises from Zcash Foundation’s trademark enforcement case
Coinspeaker reached out to the Zcash Foundation via private messages, email, and public comments on X. By the time of writing, Zcash Foundation had not responded to our inquiries.
According to the company’s trademark policy, independent projects are allowed to use the word “Zcash” and logo, but lines are drawn to protect the brand. For example, use in “Domains and Websites” is permitted as long as there is an appropriate disclaimer that this is an independent project not affiliated with the Foundation or any other affiliated entity.
Safety First, a supporter of Zcash, posted a thread addressing the trademark policy and what they think is the reason for this action.
Why I think Zcash Foundation is defending Zcash by blackmailing @zcashstrategy dot com 🧵
Reference: https://t.co/VhuPTdukKQ https://t.co/cosYvDahzh
— Safety first (@SaveZcash) December 3, 2025
CoinSpeaker, who visited the website nine hours after Zcash Strategy’s original post, confirmed that there was a “legal disclaimer” stating that “Zcash Strategy is an independent entity of the Zcash ecosystem,” adding that “Zcash Strategy is not affiliated with, owned by, or under common control with the Zcash Foundation.”
Zcash Strategy Website Legal Disclaimer |Source: zcashstrategy.com
However, it is unclear whether this disclaimer was added before or after the email communication and public posting. Neither the Zcash Foundation nor Zcash Strategy responded to CoinSpeaker to clarify this.
Notsofast (200,000 followers) highlighted the issue of “targeting accounts with less than 300 followers on web domains” at a time when ZEC’s performance is “down 50% from its (local) highs.” Other commenters raised centralization and permitting concerns regarding the corporate-like model and trademark enforcement.
If true, targeting accounts with less than 300 followers on web domains seems like the most optically damaging thing the ZCASH Foundation could do, as ZEC’s price has fallen 50% from all-time highs.
Malice: Send lawyers after core supporters https://t.co/AxZ8RCdl8D
— notsofast (@notsofast) December 3, 2025
However, the effort has also garnered support from some known Zcash supporters. Tom Howard pointed to the $36,000 committed to DAT and said “this appears to be a scam” or that the people behind Zcash Strategy are “naive about DAT’s listings.” “Basically, the only thing that makes sense is a defensive trademark to sue for fraud,” he added in a follow-up comment. Other commentators seem to agree that this is a legitimate way to “protect the community.”
Basically, the only thing that makes sense is a defensive trademark to sue for fraud.
— Tom Howard (@_TomHoward) December 3, 2025
ZEC ZEC $366.9 24 hour volatility: 10.6% Market capitalization: $60.8 billion Vol. 24 hours: $16.9 billion It is currently trading at $332, down 55% from its local high of $744, after an impressive rally that accumulated more than 1,000% in two months as demand and market interest in the “privacy coin” increased in search and capital allocation, according to TradingView data.
Disclaimer: Coinspeaker is committed to providing fair and transparent reporting. This article is intended to provide accurate and timely information but should not be taken as financial or investment advice. Market conditions can change rapidly, so we recommend that you verify the information yourself and consult a professional before making any decisions based on this content.
