Decision by the Court of Appeal of Tanzania on Tanzania’s Suspension from the African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO) Regional Trademark System

For many years, Tanzania’s participation in the ARIPO regional trademark system created uncertainty due to inconsistencies with its national laws.

In September 2025, the Court of Appeal of Tanzania (CAT) in the case of Lakairo Industries Group Co. Ltd and 2 Others (the Appellants) versus Kenafrica Industries Ltd and 2 Others (collectively referred to as “the Respondents” and separately referred to as “First Respondent”, “Second Respondent” and “Third Respondent”, respectively), Civil Appeal No. 593 of 2022, clarified the position. The CAT held that Tanzania has never been  legally bound by the Banjul Protocol of 1993 (the Banjul Protocol), thereby providing much-needed certainty for trademark filings and aligning ARIPO practices with Tanzanian law.

In this legal update, we examine the CAT’s decision confirming Tanzania’s non-binding status under the Banjul Protocol, its implications for trademark registration and enforcement, and the practical impact on trademark owners and applicants.

Judicial confirmation of Tanzania’s ARIPO Status by the CAT

The First Respondent, a Kenyan company engaged in the manufacture and distribution of bubble gum and confectionery products, filed a suit before the High Court of Tanzania (Commercial Division) against the Appellants, the Second Respondent and the Third Respondent. The First Respondent sought a declaratory order affirming that it was the rightful and exclusive owner of the trademarks “Pipi Kifua”, “Special Veve” and “Orange Drops” (the Trademarks). It alleged that the Trademarks had been registered in its favor outside Tanzania and that the Appellants had infringed them by producing and selling confectionery products in Tanzania using similar names, packaging, and overall presentation, thereby creating customer confusion.

In 2013, the First Respondent entered into a distribution agreement with the Appellants, authorising them to distribute its bubble gum products in Tanzania under the Trademarks. However, in 2018 the First Respondent discovered that the Appellants were marketing and selling bubble gum products with similar packaging, design, and labelling under the name “Lakairo Super Veve”. The First Respondent alleged that this conduct infringed its trademark rights, prompting the commencement of legal proceedings.

Issues before the CAT

The CAT narrowed the appeal into a single issue: whether the Appellants’ trademarks infringed the Trademarks owned by the First Respondent.

Findings by the CAT

Among its key findings, the CAT observed that the allegedly infringed Trademarks were registered only in Kenya and Zimbabwe. The CAT applied the territorial registration principle, holding that, because the Trademarks were not registered in Tanzania, the mere use of similar trademarks or product names by the Appellants did not constitute an infringement.

Reinforcement of Tanzania’s removal from the ARIPO trademark system

The CAT’s judgment reinforces Tanzania’s decision to withdraw from ARIPO’s trademark system by confirming that ARIPO had improperly treated Tanzania as though it were bound by the Banjul Protocol, despite Tanzania’s unequivocal position to the contrary. The CAT upheld the Registrar of Marks’ (the Registrar) refusal to recognise ARIPO designations, and ARIPO’s subsequent removal of Tanzania from its designation system merely aligned its practice with the governing law.

Consequently, the judgment not only confirms Tanzania’s longstanding position but also validates ARIPO’s corrective measures, conclusively resolving any uncertainty regarding the enforceability of ARIPO trademarks in Tanzania.

Practical implications for trademark owners and applicants

The judgment by the CAT confirms that ARIPO trademarks are no longer effective in Tanzania, and enforceable rights now depend on local registration with the Registrar at the Business Registrations and Licensing Agency (BRELA) under the Trade and Service Marks Act, Chapter 326 Revised Edition 2023. Trademark owners must therefore adjust their intellectual property (IP) strategies and ensure domestic registration to protect their rights enabling them to pursue infringement claims effectively.

Conclusion

The CAT’s decision firmly establishes that ARIPO trademarks are not enforceable in Tanzania, reaffirming the primacy of local registration. Both domestic and international trademark holders should promptly register their marks with BRELA, review existing portfolios, and align their IP strategies with Tanzanian law to safeguard their rights, prevent infringement, and mitigate potential commercial risks.