Regional and International Trade Mark Filing Systems in Africa: A Cautionary Tale from Tanzania

In a significant ruling, the Tanzanian Court of Appeal—the highest court for both Mainland Tanzania and Zanzibar—held that trade marks registered through ARIPO are unenforceable in Tanzania.  

The Lakairo Case

In Lakairo Industries Group Co. Limited v. Kenafrica Industries Limited  (Civil Appeal No. 593 of 2022), the Court ruled on trade mark infringement claims involving confectionery brands. It confirmed that Tanzania operates a dualist legal system, meaning international treaties do not automatically become part of domestic law upon ratification. Separate parliamentary legislation is required for implementation.  

The Court’s conclusion: Because Tanzania has not ratified the Banjul Protocol, ARIPO registrations are unenforceable in Tanzanian courts.

In response, ARIPO issued Notice BP/2025/1 on 23 October 2025, confirming that “Tanzania is ineligible for designation under the Banjul Protocol until further notice.”

It is important to note that this ruling affects trade marks filed via ARIPO only. The Harare Protocol which deals with patents, utility models and designs is less problematic as the 1994 Patents (Registration) Act (Chapter 217 of 1994) does include provisions recognising patents and utility models filed via the ARIPO system. As such, the ruling should not negatively affect holders of ARIPO patents or utility models covering Tanzania, subject to our comments regarding Zanzibar below.  

The Zanzibar Complication

An additional issue not addressed by the Court further complicates matters: even if ARIPO registrations were valid, they could not cover all of Tanzania due to separate trade mark systems governing Mainland Tanzania and Zanzibar.

Despite their political union since 1964, Mainland Tanzania (Tanganyika) and Zanzibar maintain independent IP laws and registration systems. Since Zanzibar is not an independent state, it cannot be party to the Banjul Protocol.  

Key Takeaways

This ruling confirms that:

• ARIPO trade mark registrations do not confer enforceable rights in Tanzania
• Rights holders should file separate local applications in both Mainland Tanzania and Zanzibar
• Failure to do so renders enforcement actions legally untenable, even where marketplace confusion exists

Broader Implications

This case reinforces a critical principle: regional IP systems (such as ARIPO) and international systems (such as Madrid) are only effective in dualist legal systems if the underlying treaties have been domesticated through national legislation. 

Domestication Alone May Be Insufficient

Mere domestication may not suffice to give full effect to international IP instruments—even in dualist (and arguably monist) systems—unless enabling provisions are enacted to harmonize national procedures with international requirements.

Tanzania exemplifies this challenge: Mainland Tanzania and Zanzibar have different trade mark renewal periods. Without enabling legislation to align these conflicting provisions with international instruments, legal uncertainty persists.  

The solution: Domestication coupled with comprehensive enabling legislation is essential to eliminate conflicts and provide certainty under regional and international IP systems.