Olufemi Adeyemi 

A legal and branding showdown is brewing in Nigeria’s tech sector, spotlighting the country’s maturing but still vulnerable startup ecosystem. At the center of the dispute are two players—emerging crypto exchange Zap Africa and established fintech giant Paystack—both laying claim to the brand name “Zap.”

This clash is more than just a legal skirmish. It reflects the growing pains of a rapidly evolving industry where intellectual property (IP) protections are often an afterthought. The dispute, now unfolding in both legal channels and public discourse, offers a cautionary tale about the importance of trademark diligence.

A Collision of Brands

The controversy reached a tipping point on March 24, 2025, when Paystack launched Zap, a new consumer product aimed at expanding its presence in Nigeria’s B2C financial services space. But instead of applause, the debut sparked alarm at Zap Africa, which has operated under the same name since 2023.

Zap Africa’s co-founders, Tobi Asu-Johnson and Moore Dagogo-Hart, say they have invested years in developing the brand and securing trademark protections. According to them, their filings span three major trademark classes: Class 35 (business services), Class 42 (tech services), and crucially, Class 36 (financial services)—the very category Paystack’s new product falls under.

“We secured Class 35 in 2023, followed by Class 42 in 2024,” said Asu-Johnson. “Class 36 was the final piece—and we locked that in just weeks before Paystack’s product went live.”

Following the launch, Zap Africa issued a cease-and-desist letter. Also, Zap Africa took the opportunity to distinguish itself with a now-viral post on X, stating, 'There is only one ZAP in Nigeria and Africa,' which has garnered over 1million views, 1,300 likes

Paystack responded in kind.

“They’ve mirrored everything—our tagline ‘you just got zapped,’ the logo style, even our signature ‘Z’ icon,” Asu-Johnson alleged. “It feels like a full-scale appropriation of our identity.”

Efforts to resolve the matter privately have failed, with tensions continuing to mount.

Paystack's Position

While Paystack has not made an official statement, a source close to the company confirmed that the brand’s trademark filings were done in good faith and included financial services. The source maintained that at the time of filing, no conflict with Zap Africa's registration in Class 36 was apparent.

This point—who had rightful claim to Class 36 at the time of filing—is now the crux of the legal dispute.

Expert Perspectives

Legal experts say the case underscores a common pitfall for startups: underestimating the complexity of trademark protections.

“This is a textbook example of why startups need comprehensive IP strategies,” said Tolu Olaloye, an intellectual property attorney at Jackson, Etti & Edu. “In sectors like fintech, where product lines often overlap, failure to cover all relevant classes can invite conflicts.”

Olaloye cited past rulings where trademark class overlaps played a decisive role in determining infringement.

“In the Fan Milk v. Mandarin Oriental case, unrelated classes protected both brands. But overlap, especially in tight markets like finance, is another story.”

She suggested a negotiated compromise might be best for all involved. “Paystack could modify its branding slightly—adjust the name or visuals—without abandoning the product.”

Professor Bankola Sodipo, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria and former Law Dean at Babcock University, emphasized the role of the Trademark Registry in forestalling such conflicts.

“The legal benchmark is whether the two brands are so similar that an average consumer could confuse them,” he said. “The Registry should be playing a more proactive role in flagging these risks early.”

A Business Impact Beyond Legal Papers

For Zap Africa, the consequences have already extended beyond legal debates. Confusion among users is starting to affect business performance.

“People are hesitant to use our platform now,” said co-founder Dagogo-Hart. “They’re asking if we’ll still be around next quarter. That’s a heavy burden for a growing business.”

Nonetheless, the team remains confident. “We played by the rules. We believe the law is on our side,” he added.

Mediation Over Litigation?

The Nigerian Association of Chambers of Commerce, Industry, Mines, and Agriculture (NACCIMA) has stepped in, calling for a non-litigious resolution. Its president, Dele Kelvin Oye, urged both parties to consider mediation facilitated by the Trademark Registrar.

“NACCIMA is prepared to assist through our National Dispute Resolution Centers,” Oye said. “This kind of public legal dispute can scare off investors and destabilize the broader ecosystem.”

Lessons for the Ecosystem

At its core, the Zap-Paystack conflict highlights the importance of proactive and comprehensive intellectual property strategy in the startup world.

Nigeria follows a first-to-file system—giving priority to the earliest registrant. However, prior use, brand visibility, and breadth of protection across relevant classes can influence legal outcomes.

“Too many startups focus on building their product while neglecting their IP,” said Olaloye. “But the brand itself can be just as valuable as the underlying technology.”

Understanding Trademark Classes

Nigeria’s system uses the international Nice Classification framework, which divides trademarks into 45 classes. For fintechs, Class 36 is non-negotiable—it governs banking, financial services, and insurance. However, companies often need to secure adjacent classes to fully protect their brand across digital services, software, and consumer touchpoints.

In a related development, Paystack recently led a consortium—including PiggyVest and investor Olumide Soyombo—in acquiring struggling fintech Brass. Originally founded by Sola Akindolu and Emmanuel Okeke, Brass had raised over $2 million before hitting financial hurdles. It now operates under new leadership following the acquisition.

Great — here's how that case could be integrated into a follow-up or sidebar article, expanding on the Zap vs. Paystack dispute with a comparative lens:

Precedent in Play: MTN’s Costly Trademark Defeat Offers Lessons for Paystack-Zap Dispute

As the legal battle between Zap Africa and Paystack unfolds, a recent ruling in a separate but strikingly similar trademark case offers a cautionary precedent.

In 2025, a Federal High Court in Lagos ruled in favor of Citilink Accesscorp Limited in its long-running trademark infringement suit against MTN Nigeria, awarding the lesser-known tech firm ₦70 million in yearly damages from 2014 to 2025—totaling a staggering ₦840 million. The ruling also permanently barred MTN from using the trademarked name WEBPLUS in any form.

The Disputed Mark: WEBPLUS

Citilink had trademarked the name WEBPLUS years prior, but MTN Nigeria contested the suit by arguing that Citilink’s trademark registration had lapsed between 2008 and 2014. MTN also claimed to have filed for the mark independently in 2024, believing it had no existing conflict.

But the court didn’t buy the argument. Despite the registration gap, the judge upheld Citilink’s claim, citing continuous use, brand identity, and consumer association as key factors.

Legal Implications

The verdict reinforces a critical point: even where procedural lapses occur—like a break in trademark registration—the courts may still side with the original user if brand continuity and prior public recognition can be proven.

For legal experts watching the Zap Africa vs. Paystack case, the MTN outcome sends a powerful message.

“This shows that courts are increasingly weighing substance over form,” said intellectual property lawyer Tolu Olaloye. “It’s not just about the paperwork—it’s about who built the brand, who consumers associate with it, and who used it first in the marketplace.”

The decision also signals that high-profile firms are not immune to harsh rulings if found to have infringed on smaller players.

Strategic Takeaways for Startups

Startups watching these legal sagas unfold would do well to heed the lessons:

  • Register trademarks early—and renew them without fail.
  • File across all relevant classes, especially in adjacent sectors.
  • Document usage of brand assets to build a history of consumer association.
  • Don’t rely solely on registration dates; goodwill and market presence matter too.

Whether the Zap vs. Paystack case ends in a court ruling or a mediated settlement, the MTN-Citilink decision will likely shape how future trademark disputes are interpreted in Nigeria’s dynamic tech landscape.

Final Thoughts

The Zap case is more than just a trademark dispute—it’s a moment of reflection for Nigeria’s startup scene. As local companies mature and globalize, brand protection will become not just an option, but a necessity.