Zora, a prominent Ethereum-native token platform, recently filed a lawsuit against Deloitte. The complaint alleges that Deloitte, one of the largest professional services firms in the world, has violated Zora’s trademark rights. The lawsuit, filed on June 11 in the Southern District of New York and assigned to Judge Arun Subramanian, centers around Deloitte's use of the name "Zora AI" for its digital workforce AI platform. Zora alleges that Deloitte’s continued use of the name constitutes unauthorized trademark infringement on Zora’s famous marks.

Zora’s lawsuit is an attempt to force Deloitte to stop using the “Zora AI” name going forward. Besides the fact that they sound alike and could confuse consumers, here’s the company’s reasoning. This confusion might end up causing irreparable damage to Zora’s brand and reputation.

Zora's trademarks, the earliest of which dates back to May 2020, protect the company's use of "Zora" in connection with downloadable mobile apps or software, cryptocurrency exchange services, and non-downloadable web applications. The last trademark was issued as recently as March 2025, giving Zora an even stronger claim on the name.

In just a short time, Zora has emerged as one of the leading marketplace platforms for creative non-fungible tokens (NFTs). Here, users can seamlessly mint, purchase, sell, and curate their digital assets. Last year, the platform made big waves when it raised $50 million in funding. This remarkable investment increased the company’s value to $600 million. In addition to more robust tools for creators, Zora offers an AI-driven solution that allows everyday consumers to mint and buy NFTs.

As far as Zora’s lawyers are concerned, Zora has been pretty aggressive in defending its intellectual property.

"As you must be aware, Zora is one of the most prominent marketplace platforms in which users can mint, buy, offer for sale, sell, and curate NFTs" - Zora's lawyers

Zora's attorney, Merri Moken, emphasized the company's commitment to safeguarding its brand.

"Zora takes great care in developing and protecting its intellectual property, including the ZORA trademark, which was established well before Deloitte Consulting's use of the same mark" - Merri Moken

The lawsuit came after Zora was alerted to Deloitte’s use of the “Zora AI” moniker. To begin with, Zora only attempted to resolve the matter amicably. On February 14, she sent a letter to Deloitte, urging them to change the name of their product. In late May, Moken issued Deloitte a deadline of June 9 to address the request.

"Zora is a client of Deloitte Tax, and was disappointed to see Deloitte Consulting adopt Zora's mark without permission" - Merri Moken

"After making multiple attempts to resolve this matter amicably, Zora was ultimately left with no choice but to seek a restraining order to prevent further infringement and harm" - Merri Moken

Zora’s recent token launchpad raised its token to a peak of $0.03438 on its first day. The token has since gone on to have a dramatic fall, crashing back down to $0.009324, a 73% drop from its top. Zora’s token has had significant trading volume with $21.7 million in trading volume in the last 24 hours. This is all taking place despite the recent sharp decline in crypto asset prices. The token has a $29 million market cap right now.

More interestingly, Zora has been a client of Deloitte since 2022, specifically retaining the services of Deloitte Tax. This pre-existing relationship fuels the fire of the current conflict. Zora contends that Deloitte was or should have been aware of its trademark rights.

At the time of writing, Deloitte had not filed an official response to the lawsuit. According to new reports, the firm did eventually send a letter to Zora, in which they claimed not to have grounds for objection over the name.

"We do not believe that you or your client should have any cause for concern" - Deloitte

As Stephen Barrese notes, both trademarks were filed under an “intent to use” designation. This implies they get a “constructive use date” set at the time of filing.

"Both were filed as 'intent to use,' which means that they get a 'constructive use date' at the time of filing" - Stephen Barrese

"This explains why Deloitte’s argument is that there’s no way that people would confuse the NFT platform with their digital workforce platform" - Stephen Barrese