A trademark dispute between fintech giant Paystack and emerging crypto player Zap Africa has brought intellectual property protection in Nigeria to the forefront. This isn’t just another corporate disagreement; it’s a pivotal moment that could reshape how startups defend their brand identity—and how seriously intellectual property (IP) rights are enforced in Nigeria’s growing innovation space.
Background
Zap Africa, founded in 2023, is Nigeria’s first non-custodial crypto exchange. The platform offers decentralized finance (DeFi) services, enabling users to swap and send cryptocurrencies without the involvement of a central authority. Since 2022, the company has operated under the trademarked name “Zap.”
In March 2025, Paystack, one of Nigeria’s most prominent fintech companies, launched a consumer-facing payment app called “Zap by Paystack,” designed to enable instant transfers.
Zap Africa’s Position
Zap Africa argues that Paystack’s use of the name “Zap” infringes upon its trademark rights and creates confusion among users. The company’s CEO, Tobiloba Asu-Johnson, stated that legal steps have already been taken to protect their intellectual property. He emphasized Zap Africa’s commitment to building a trusted brand in the crypto and fintech space and expressed the company’s willingness to pursue legal action if necessary.
Echoing this stance, Moore Dagogo-Hart, Zap Africa’s CTO, framed the issue as one about more than just naming rights. He described it as a fight to safeguard African innovation and prevent the brand’s identity from being diluted.
Paystack’s Response
As of the latest reports, Paystack has not publicly responded to the allegations or the legal actions initiated by Zap Africa. Attempts by media outlets to reach Paystack for comments have been unsuccessful
The dispute underscores the importance of clear trademark rights in the rapidly evolving fintech and crypto sectors. To better understand the stakes in this dispute, it is essential to examine the foundation of trademark rights in Nigeria and how existing laws and court rulings may apply
Understanding Trademark Rights In Nigeria
Legal Framework
In Nigeria, a trademark refers to any word, logo, phrase, symbol, or combination that distinguishes one entity’s goods from another. It is a core component of brand identity and market exclusivity.
In Nigeria, the legal framework includes the Trademarks Act, Cap T13 LFN 2004 which functions as the primary law governing trademarks. The legal instrument provides for the registration of trademarks, legal rights of trademark owners, infringement penalties, and remedies. There is also the Trademarks Regulations 1967 which details the procedural aspects of registration. Nigeria is also part of several international treaties which contribute to the broader landscape of Intellectual property protection in Nigeria. They include the following:
- Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property.
- .World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).
- Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).
- African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) protocols also include IP provisions.
Key Legal Provisions and Case Law
Section 30(4) of CAMA 2020 empowers the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) to compel a company to change its name if it conflicts with an existing registered trademark or business name. This was reinforced in Sanofi S.A. v. Sanofi Integrated Services Ltd., where the Federal High Court upheld the trademark holder’s rights over a conflicting company name.
The Trademarks Act also provides that infringement occurs when a mark identical or confusingly similar to a registered trademark is used without permission, especially if it causes consumer confusion. This was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Alliance International Ltd. v. Saam Kolo International Enterprises Ltd.
Importantly, businesses without registered trademarks are not left unprotected. Under Section 3 of the Trademarks Act, the common law tort of passing off allows brand owners to claim protection if they can prove that another party’s use of their name misleads the public and causes harm to their goodwill.
Application To Zap Africa Vs. Paystack
In the context of Zap Africa and Paystack, several legal considerations emerge:
- Trademark Registration: If Zap Africa has a registered trademark for “Zap,” it holds exclusive rights to use the name in its class of goods or services.
- Likelihood of Confusion: Paystack’s use of “Zap” for a new product could lead to consumer confusion, especially if both entities operate in overlapping sectors like fintech or digital payments.
- Prior Use and Goodwill: Even if Zap Africa’s trademark is unregistered, it may claim passing off if it can demonstrate substantial goodwill and brand recognition associated with the “Zap” name.
Why The Zap Africa Vs. Paystack Trademark Dispute Matters
The trademark dispute between Zap Africa and Paystack represents a landmark moment in Nigeria’s evolving tech and intellectual property (IP) landscape. This is arguably one of the most high-profile trademark conflicts to arise in the country’s digital ecosystem, drawing widespread attention not only because of the parties involved—Zap Africa, a rising startup, and Paystack, a major fintech player backed by global payments giant Stripe—but also because of its implications for brand protection, IP law enforcement, and the maturity of Nigeria’s startup ecosystem.
At the center of this dispute is a critical legal question: does the use of a trademarked name by a larger corporation for a specific product amount to infringement when that name defines a smaller startup’s entire business identity? This challenges the way Nigeria interprets the “likelihood of confusion” standard, especially in markets where brand names and product names overlap. If Zap Africa prevails, it could establish a precedent that emphasizes the primacy of brand identity protection over functional distinctions between company names and product titles, reinforcing the statutory protections outlined in the Trademarks Act and guiding future judicial interpretations in Nigeria’s growing digital economy.
Beyond brand ownership, the case also underscores the urgent need for consistent enforcement of Nigeria’s IP laws. While Nigeria has robust intellectual property statutes on paper, chiefly the Trademarks Act, Cap T13, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004, enforcement has historically been inconsistent. The prominence of this dispute may force courts, registries, and regulators to re-evaluate their approach to IP enforcement, especially as the case raises complex legal questions: What constitutes “confusing similarity” between trademarks? What is the proper balance between the priority of registration versus the priority of use? What burden of proof must be met for a successful infringement claim? If the case proceeds through litigation or administrative rulings, it could help define legal standards that have so far been underdeveloped in Nigerian jurisprudence.
Moreover, the Paystack-Zap Africa dispute is already having a broader educational effect across the startup community. One persistent issue in the Nigerian tech space is that many founders delay or entirely overlook trademark registration, often viewing it as a mere formality rather than a strategic asset. Now, the ongoing debate is igniting crucial conversations among founders, developers, and incubators: “Do you really own your brand?” “Have you conducted a proper trademark search before naming your product?” “What if a well-funded competitor adopts your name tomorrow?” These conversations are likely to lead to an increase in trademark filings with the Nigerian Trademarks Registry, more founders consulting IP lawyers at earlier stages, and startup accelerators making IP due diligence a non-negotiable component of their programs.
The dispute is also a strong signal of the increasing maturity of Nigeria’s tech ecosystem. In Silicon Valley, brand conflicts are common because a competitive and innovative environment inevitably leads to brand collisions. That such a conflict is emerging in Nigeria suggests that local startups are now building valuable intellectual assets worth fighting over. It also signals that legal institutions in the country will need to keep pace with the dynamics of the tech sector, adjusting to handle more complex and high-stakes commercial disputes.
Importantly, this isn’t just a local matter—it has global ramifications. Paystack is a Stripe-backed company, and if it is compelled to rebrand or settle the matter due to Zap Africa’s claims, it would send a clear message: African brands are legally and commercially significant, even in global IP discussions. This may encourage foreign investors and multinational partners to treat African IP claims with more gravity, especially in high-growth sectors like Web3, crypto, and fintech. It could also catalyze broader discussions about Pan-African IP harmonization under frameworks such as the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA).
Finally, the dispute reveals the increasing complexity of brand identity in the digital age. While Paystack’s use of “Zap” appears to apply to a product, Zap Africa’s entire corporate identity is built around that name. This raises a thorny question: Can a large company name a product after a startup’s trademarked brand, even if the company itself has a different name? In digital marketplaces, where product names often eclipse company names in consumer recognition, this distinction becomes blurred. The consequences for smaller firms can be severe—ranging from brand dilution to reduced visibility on search engines and app stores. The decision in this case may ultimately help clarify the boundaries of product naming rights in increasingly crowded and fast-moving digital markets.
What Happens Next?
Whether the case ends in court or through settlement, the ripple effects will be felt across boardrooms, pitch decks, and legal teams. We may see:
- A surge in trademark applications
- Accelerators requiring IP checks before Demo Day
- More public discourse around brand protection and founder rights
Conclusion
This case isn’t just about who gets to use the name “Zap”; it is a reflection of the growing pains of an innovation ecosystem racing ahead of its legal infrastructure. If Nigeria—and Africa at large—aims to foster a truly competitive, creative, and fair digital economy, then protecting early-stage innovators from brand dilution must become a central concern of intellectual property policy and enforcement. Courts, regulators, and investors must recognize that in a fast-evolving tech landscape, the value of a brand extends far beyond confusion in the marketplace; it is the foundation of a company’s trust, visibility, and long-term viability. How this case unfolds may well signal whether the law can rise to meet the demands of the new economy—or whether the risks facing startups will continue to grow, unchecked, in the shadow of market giants.