Legal Analysis — Intellectual Property Protection in African Fashion: National, Regional and International Dimensions

Source: Oladimeji Odunsi (Unsplash)

Intellectual property protection in Africa is governed through multiple layers that operate at national, regional, continental and international levels. These layers interact to form a complex legal landscape that affects how creators, businesses and innovators secure and enforce their rights. Although Africa has made progress in harmonising IP protection, the framework is still largely fragmented, and understanding these layers is essential to navigating the system effectively.

National Level

Africa has 54 countries, and each one retains sovereignty over its intellectual property laws. This means that IP protection begins at the national level, with each country having its own legislation and administrative structures. National laws typically govern patents, trademarks, industrial designs, copyrights and related rights. For example, Ghana regulates patents through the Patent Act of 2003 (Act 657). Kenya has its Industrial Property Act as well as separate legislation for copyright. South Africa has comprehensive IP laws covering patents, trademarks, designs and copyright, and it has built a relatively advanced system for IP enforcement through its courts.

National IP offices are responsible for processing applications, granting rights and managing related administrative functions. Even where a country participates in regional or international frameworks, national law remains central for enforcement and interpretation. Since most African countries are members of the World Trade Organization, they must also ensure that their national legislation meets the minimum standards required under the TRIPS Agreement.

Regional Level

Because of shared histories and linguistic affiliations, several African countries have established regional IP systems to make registration more efficient and to harmonise laws. The two main regional IP organisations in Africa are the African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO) and the Organisation Africaine de la Propriété Intellectuelle (OAPI). They operate differently in terms of how registration works and how rights are extended across member states.

ARIPO was established by the Lusaka Agreement of 1976 and currently has 22 member states, most of which are Anglophone or Lusophone countries. Its protocols cover different types of IP rights. The Harare Protocol governs patents, utility models and industrial designs. The Banjul Protocol covers trademarks. The Swakopmund Protocol protects traditional knowledge and folklore. The Arusha Protocol focuses on plant varieties. To register through ARIPO, an applicant can file directly with ARIPO or through a national IP office. The applicant must designate which member states they want protection in, and the right only takes effect in those states that are both designated and have ratified the relevant protocol. While ARIPO simplifies filing across multiple jurisdictions, its system does not automatically cover all member states, and enforcement remains tied to national laws.

OAPI is structured quite differently. It was created under the Bangui Agreement of 1977, which has since been revised, and currently has 17 member states, most of which are francophone. Unlike ARIPO, OAPI operates a unitary system. A single registration through OAPI automatically covers all member states without the need to designate specific countries. Member states under OAPI do not maintain separate national IP laws for industrial property because the Bangui Agreement is directly applicable in each country. This creates a high degree of legal uniformity and simplifies the process for applicants. It also reduces the costs of multiple filings. However, it gives less flexibility to applicants who might not want protection in all member states.

The main difference between ARIPO and OAPI lies in how rights are extended. OAPI registration automatically covers all member states. ARIPO requires designation and does not give automatic coverage, although it provides priority rights across designated states. This distinction shapes how creators and businesses choose their filing strategies.

Continental Level

At the continental level, there is not yet a fully operational Africa-wide IP registration system. However, steps are being taken to move in that direction through the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA). The AfCFTA Protocol on Intellectual Property Rights, which was adopted in 2023, aims to harmonise IP laws and standards across the continent. It is expected to create a framework for stronger IP protection, support intra-African trade and encourage innovation.

The AfCFTA IP Protocol draws inspiration from the TRIPS Agreement. It contains general obligations, principles and annexes that will address specific areas of IP such as patents, trademarks and designs. However, the annexes are still under negotiation, and implementation will depend on ratification by member states and the adaptation of national legislation. For now, the protocol represents a forward-looking framework rather than an operational system.

International Level

Africa’s IP landscape is also influenced by international conventions and treaties. These instruments provide a foundation for cross-border protection and establish minimum standards that countries must follow. One of the most important is the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. This convention allows an applicant who files in one member country to claim priority when filing in another within a set period, preserving the earlier filing date. Most African countries are parties to the Paris Convention.

Another major instrument is the Madrid System for the international registration of trademarks. It allows trademark owners in member countries to file a single international application through WIPO and seek protection in multiple other member states. This system can be particularly useful for fashion designers and creative businesses that want to expand into multiple markets. Not all African countries are part of the Madrid Protocol, but membership is growing. For example, Ethiopia has acceded and its membership will become effective in 2025.

The TRIPS Agreement under the World Trade Organization sets the global minimum standards for IP protection, including patents, trademarks, copyright and enforcement procedures. Since most African countries are WTO members, TRIPS obligations shape national IP laws across the continent. The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works is also highly relevant. It governs copyright protection, establishes the principle of automatic protection without formal registration, and sets minimum terms and moral rights standards. Many African countries are parties to Berne, and others, like Ethiopia, are joining.

Other treaties also play a role depending on the field. These include the WIPO Copyright Treaty, the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, and the UPOV Convention on plant varieties. Together, they form a global IP network in which African countries participate to different extents.

Practical Implications and Gaps

For creators, businesses and fashion designers, the layered IP framework presents both opportunities and challenges. Regional systems such as OAPI and ARIPO can reduce costs and simplify registration processes, but they work differently and require strategic choices. International treaties open pathways for global protection but also require that the applicant’s home country be a member. Enforcement is often weakest at the national level, where courts and administrative agencies may face capacity constraints.

Significant gaps remain. Many countries have not ratified or fully implemented regional and international protocols. Enforcement can be slow or inconsistent. Capacity building is uneven, and awareness of IP rights is low in many industries. As a result, even when legal protection exists on paper, practical protection can be weak.

The AfCFTA IP Protocol presents an opportunity to build a more harmonised and predictable IP system across Africa. If properly implemented, it could make IP protection more coherent, support trade and innovation, and strengthen the continent’s position in the global economy.

Conclusion

Africa’s IP protection framework is multi-layered and evolving. National laws remain the foundation, supported by regional systems such as ARIPO and OAPI, emerging continental frameworks like the AfCFTA IP Protocol, and international treaties such as the Paris Convention, Madrid Protocol, TRIPS and Berne. Understanding how these layers interact is crucial for anyone seeking to protect or enforce IP rights on the continent. As integration efforts progress, the African IP landscape may become more unified and accessible, offering stronger protection for innovation and creativity across the region.