Zap Africa has presented exclusive documentation to Technext confirming that it holds official trademark registrations for ‘ZAP’ under critical service classes. These include Class 35 (Business Services), Class 36 (Insurance and Financial Services), and Class 42 (Scientific and Technological Services), all approved by Nigeria’s Ministry of Trade, Industry, and Investment.
This revelation adds fuel to an intensifying dispute between Zap Africa and Paystack, which recently launched its new payment product dispute between Zap Africa and Paystack, which recently launched its new payment product ‘Zap by Paystack.’ The branding overlap has led to claims of infringement and counterclaims about rightful ownership.
The Trademark Timeline: Who Filed First?
Paystack, in a cease and desist letter, claims that it filed for ‘Zap by Paystack’ as early as 2023. According to the company, it conducted all due diligence before proceeding with the launch and filed across Classes 9, 35, 36, and 42, which cover everything from scientific tools to financial services.
However, Zap Africa argues that its own filings, approved by the Ministry should have triggered a conflict alert if Paystack’s application already existed in the system.
A source familiar with Zap Africa’s registration said: “Ordinarily, once a name has been filed under a particular class, any subsequent similar application should raise red flags during the search process.”
Both Apps, One Name: The Google Play Store Dilemma
Interestingly, there are a number of apps that are listed simply as “Zap” on the Google Play Store, with no distinguishing titles. Paystack’s app was published on November 14, 2024, while Zap Africa’s went live on December 19, 2023. Despite the chronological difference, users might find it difficult to differentiate the brands on app stores.
Zap Africa further claims Paystack mimicked its communication tone, notably the use of “Zapped,” a term it says it pioneered.
Paystack’s Legal Defense: Context, Class, and Common Terms
In response to inquiries, Paystack stands by the legitimacy of its application. The company points to the specificity of its filing, “Zap by Paystack”, noting that “Zap” on its own is a common, generic word.
“Trademarking a generic term doesn’t grant exclusive ownership unless it has distinctiveness within a certain context,” a Paystack representative explained.
The company argues that its registration includes the name and logo, thus qualifying it for protection within the scope of its intended use.
Paystack’s IMTO Status Under Scrutiny
Amid the trademark controversy, Paystack is facing additional scrutiny. A report by Fatu Ogwuche alleges that “Zap by Paystack” lacks the necessary approval from Nigeria’s Central Bank to operate as an International Money Transfer Operator (IMTO). Furthermore, it suggests Paystack is not registered with the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) either.
“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,” the report states.
The Bigger Picture
Both Zap Africa and Paystack appear committed to their respective positions. Zap Africa is exploring legal options while firmly standing by its trademark documentation. Paystack, on the other hand, maintains its compliance and is confident in its filing timeline and class definitions.
This case may serve as a critical reference point for future intellectual property disputes, especially in how the Ministry manages class overlaps, naming rights, and pre-registration checks.
Whether or not this escalates into a courtroom battle, the Zap vs. Paystack saga underscores the need for clarity, transparency, and stronger enforcement within Nigeria’s trademark registry. For a booming fintech ecosystem, these elements are crucial to maintaining fair competition and fostering innovation without chaos.
