EXCLUSIVE: Zap Africa holds trademark documents for “ZAP” that raises more questions

In a fresh twist to the ongoing dispute between Zap Africa and Paystack, Zap Africa has shared exclusive documentation with Technext showing it registered the “ZAP” trademark under the financial affairs, insurance, and monetary affairs category with the Ministry of Trade, Industry, and Investment.

The ministry has approved the trademarks for Zap Africa across relevant categories. This would ordinarily be a standard milestone for any company establishing its identity, except Paystack launched a new product called Zap by Paystack, which Zap Africa says goes against its ‘continuous use’ of Zap since its inception.

What followed has been a battle over brand ownership and regulatory clarity. At the core of the conflict is this: How did both companies attempt to register or use the same trademark without triggering any conflict alerts from the ministry?

In a cease and desist letter sent to Zap Africa by Paystack, the latter claimed it filed for the “ZAP by Paystack” trademark as far back as 2023, suggesting it has a legitimate prior claim.

“For your information, before our Client’s launch of the ZAP by Paystack product, our Client conducted the necessary pre-registration search at the Trademarks, Patent, and Designs Registry, and thereafter proceeded to apply for the exclusive rights to the “ZAP by Paystack and Device” mark in classes 9 (Apparatus and instruments for scientific or research purposes), 35 (Advertising and Business Management services), 36 (Insurance and Financial Services) and 42 (Scientific and Technological Services), all in the year 2023.”

The letter also mentions that checks confirm that the name “ZAP” had been trademarked in 2008 by a different entity, before Zap Africa’s existence.

But Zap Africa – which reportedly already processed ₦2 billion in transaction volume just three months after releasing its mobile application – is questioning the integrity of that claim, especially given how the trademarking process is structured in Nigeria.

Ordinarily, once a name has been filed, any other company trying to register the same would be notified. The Ministry alerts you if someone else has submitted a similar or identical name within the same class, a source close to Zap Africa told Technext.

If Paystack had indeed filed in 2023, why wasn’t Zap Africa notified or blocked during its application process, especially since they were registering in the same category – 36?

Read also: “Did they just not care?” | Zap Africa CEO speaks on Paystack’s new branding

Details about ZAP’s class registration

Zap Africa has documentation, seen by Technext, to prove that “ZAP” was registered in classes 35 (approved October 2023), 36 (approved March 2025), and 42 (approved June 2024).

The case hints at one of two things:

1- Paystack’s application, if filed, may not have gone through a full approval process (or was overlooked due to the class under which it was registered), except that “ZAP by Paystack” is a variation, but conflicts would still arise if “Zap” is used in communication.

For instance, the name of the app is just “Zap” on the Google Play Store for both platforms. The variation, however, comes on the App Store:

Paystack’s Zap was released on the Play Store on November 14, 2024, while Zap Africa’s app was released on December 19, 2023.

Also, communication by Paystack has used ‘Zapped’, which the source says is a copycat of how they have communicated with their users.

2- The trademark system at the Ministry may not be as airtight as it appears, raising the possibility that two entities can claim rights to the same brand name under overlapping service categories.

This creates a regulatory grey area with wide implications, especially in Nigeria’s increasingly competitive fintech sector, where brand identity can make or break a startup.

Zap Africa’s legal team is reportedly exploring next steps, but for now, the company is standing firmly on its documented approval and ministry stamp, which it says validates its claim to the “ZAP” brand.

Paystack clarifies it registered “Zap by Paystack”, not “Zap”

In response to Technext‘s query, Paystack maintains that its use of “Zap by Paystack” does not infringe on existing rights.

According to Paystack, the company filed for the “Zap by Paystack” trademark — covering both the name and the logo — across several classes, including Class 36, as far back as 2023.

They argue that if another party began filing for a similar trademark under the same class only after their product had launched publicly, then the timing “naturally raises questions that should ideally be double-checked.” From a legal standpoint, Paystack says it acted early, filed under the relevant class, and followed due process.

Paystack also encourages a detailed examination of the full trademark timeline and class filings. The company believes that in a landscape where the word “Zap” has been used by several entities for over a decade, context and chronology matter when assessing intellectual property claims.

When asked whether the company believes its 2023 trademark registration of “Zap by Paystack” offers sufficient protection for the standalone word “Zap” in financial services, Paystack responded affirmatively.

The team noted that its filing, including both name and the logo, was made under the correct class and offers clear and legitimate protection.

Also, Paystack points out that under Nigerian trademark law, registering a common or generic word like “Zap” does not automatically grant exclusive rights to that word, especially when it’s already used by many other businesses in the country. What matters, the company insists, is distinctiveness, the trademark class, and how the word is used in context.

Ultimately, Paystack believes it has legal grounds to support its use of the “Zap by Paystack” name in financial services. The company emphasises the importance of understanding how trademarks work in practice, especially in sectors like fintech, where growth is rapid and the need for regulatory precision is high.

Meanwhile, in a report by Fatu Ogwuche on This is Big, Paystack does not have an IMTO approval yet. In other words, “Zap by Paystack” should not be offering international money transfers since there is no confirmation that it has approval from either Nigeria’s apex bank.

Paystack is also not listed among the CBN’s authorised International Money Transfer Operator Licences (IMTOs) or registered with the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), which regulates financial services in the UK.

But Paystack’s parent company, Stripe, may have that approval; except that the report claims it does not:

“We contacted the FCA, and they confirmed that Paystack is not listed as an affiliate or agent of Stripe in their database or for regulatory purposes and, therefore, has no standing to offer cross-border remittances in or out of the UK.”