Anyone who has recently been active on social media, particularly TwitterNG (the Nigerian vertical of Elon Musk’s social network, now known as X), would have been inundated with the buzz from Paystack’s offshoot product launch, Zap. Zap is the fintech giant’s first consumer-centric product after nearly a decade of operating as a B2B (business-to-business) company.

With a unique selling point of “Start and finish a transfer in 30 seconds,”  Zap was unveiled by Paystack’s CEO Shola Akinlade at an invite-only event on March 24, which was also streamed on YouTube in what was the company’s first livestream event.

Ten days later, discussions about Zap are still circulating on X,  largely revolving around its trademark infringement with another fintech, Zap Africa. The decentralised finance (DeFi) startup, founded in 2023, wasted no time asserting itself as the “Only Zap in Africa and Nigeria,” setting off a trademark dispute that’s uncommon in Nigeria’s tech industry. 

Before assessing the complexities of this unfolding, likely to turn legal dispute, there is another concern about Paystack Zap’s sole focus on bank transfers. Apart from its unique feature of linking any traditional bank globally to a user’s Zap app, there are tons of other fintech startups already addressing the same problem, albeit with added functionalities like savings, loans, and more. Unicorns and soonicorns like Opay, Moniepoint, Palmpay, and Kuda may be the preferred choices for Nigeria’s youth-dominated consumer base, but they are just a few among many.

As of February 2025, Nigeria is reportedly home to over 430 fintech companies, with the largest fraction comprising 56 firms that specialise in transactions and business payments. This marks a notable increase from the 255 fintechs recorded in January 2024. The proliferation of fintechs, while other sectors remain underserved by tech solutions, has been a growing concern for some. However, the fintech’s funding opportunities, scalability, and potential for market traction suggest that this trend is unlikely to slow down.

Zap, with over 5,000 downloads on app stores so far, has a long way to go before breaking into users’ preferred options. But it first has to resolve its trademark dispute with Zap Africa.

The latest from both sides is that they have issued cease-and-desist orders against each other for infringement of the Zap trademark. At first glance, the situation might seem amusing, given that it’s developing at the highest strata of business in the country. However, there’s a deeper issue that, though it could have been avoided, will set a precedent for all players in the industry.

Businesses of all sizes in Nigeria are mandated to register their company names with the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC), after which exclusive rights over a brand name, logo, or slogan must be registered as trademarks under the Federal Ministry of Industry, Trade, and Investment, which operates with the 45 trademark classes used globally.

This is the crux of the issue between Zap by Paystack and Zap Africa. Both did their (undue) diligence of getting their business trademarked by filing the application, obtaining approval, publishing it in the Trademark Journal, and obtaining a trademark certificate. However, while they might both have a trademark certificate for the name brand, they did so under different categories of the 45 existing ones.

Per Condia, Paystack’s Zap filed its trademark across six categories, most notably Class 36, which covers financial and monetary matters. On the other hand, Zap Africa, the first of the two entities to file for the trademark, obtained its own under Class 42’s Information Technology.

The framework surrounding trademarks allows for multiple companies to register similar trademark, provided it’s for another class that’s not being marked by an existing business. This explains why there are about eight companies with Zap in their name in Africa, yet only two are at loggerheads. The other six are in unrelated terrains like logistics, media, and oil. They must have trademarked their companies under different classes that don’t infringe on an already existing mark or create confusion for users, given that they operate in different industries.

Take Zap Oil Purification Ltd, the South African company that filed as early as 2015 under Class 4 for industrial oil and lubricants. If Zap Oil had extended its trademark to 44 other classes (which is only possible with legitimate commercial intent or actual use in each class), it would have had significant priority that would make it difficult for new entrants to trademark the name or win a case against it if they tried.

That’s not the case for the Nigerian Zaps, which are both in the financial technology space. The optics aren’t favourable for Zap Africa in this light despite being the first to trademark, as it did so under Class 42’s Information Technology. This classification might weaken its case against Paystack’s Zap, since Paystack could argue that they did their due diligence by filing under an unmarked financial category.

For Zap by Paystack, it’s neither a bad nor a great position, as a court case could have unpredictable outcomes. However, how the dispute unfolds will make for an interesting and much-needed case study across the board.