There is no particular reason to think the same issues would apply to "minting" a private currency which did not consist of metallic coins or incorporate any "patriotic" imagery.
[0] https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-von-nothaus?q=Unit...
1.
> Von NotHaus designed the Liberty Dollar currency in 1998 and the Liberty coins were marked with the dollar sign ($); the words dollar, USA, Liberty, Trust in God (instead of In God We Trust)
So that is not a great example, as it is currency designed to confuse people into thinking they are real dollars.
2.
The USA is just one set of laws. Over the pond in the UK, it is fine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_community_currencies_i...
3.
This isn't a new currency, it is a new key storage format for Bitcoin.
That was the government's argument. The defendant clearly disagreed. Arguably they were closer to "real dollars" (defined by the Coinage Act of 1792 to consist of 416 grains, or about 0.95 ounces, of standard silver) than anything the government has minted recently. A bit better, even.
The dollar sign and the word "dollar" are not unique to US currency and in fact predate the US entirely. Likewise for the word "liberty" or the phrase "trust in God"—if anything that last would probably be deemed a blatant violation of the separation of Church and State if the government actually put it on their currency. These are just generic elements common to many currencies and US culture. Even the initials "USA" don't actually imply any endorsement by the US government; you can find them on just about everything these days. The intent was patriotism, not confusion. The same would have been true if they had spelled out "United States of America" like the official coins, though of course they didn't do that.
Any actual confusion can more readily be blamed on the US Mint for making their coins too generic than on NORFED for making theirs too similar. At least NORFED put their name in their design; the US Mint did not.
The fact that the liberty dollar happened to cost more than a real dollar doesn't make it not a counterfeit; it makes its manufacturer a fool.
> The fact that the liberty dollar happened to cost more than a real dollar doesn't make it not a counterfeit…
No, the fact that it was never intended as a counterfeit is what makes it not a counterfeit.
The cost in materials is comparable to a real US Dollar (not to be confused with a Federal Reserve Note); the full cost could actually be lower due to technological advancements.