A rising conflict over brand ownership has surfaced between Zap Africa, a fast-growing cryptocurrency platform, and Paystack, one of Nigeria’s leading fintech firms. The disagreement centers around the use of the word “Zap,” with both companies asserting exclusive rights, igniting a debate that spans the legal sphere and the broader startup community.

This confrontation has not only led to exchanged cease-and-desist letters but also stirred public reactions, shedding light on the underdeveloped intellectual property (IP) framework that plagues many Nigerian tech startups.

Product Rollouts Spark Branding Showdown

Tensions intensified on March 24, 2025, when Paystack rolled out a new product branded “Zap” as part of its push into consumer-focused financial services. Rather than applause, the launch triggered strong opposition from Zap Africa, which claims to have operated under that brand since 2023.

According to Zap Africa’s co-founders, Tobi Asu-Johnson and Moore Dagogo-Hart, their company had already filed trademark registrations across multiple categories—Class 35 (business services), Class 42 (technology), and most notably Class 36 (financial services), which directly overlaps with Paystack’s new offering.

“We finalized Class 35 by late 2023, secured Class 42 the following year, and just shortly before Paystack’s announcement, completed registration under Class 36,” Asu-Johnson shared.

Following Paystack’s product debut, Zap Africa issued a legal notice demanding a halt. However, Paystack replied with a counter-notice, firmly defending its position.

“They’ve mimicked everything—our catchphrase, ‘you just got zapped,’ our design theme, even the stylized ‘Z’ in our emblem. It feels like a direct appropriation of our brand,” Asu-Johnson asserted.

Efforts to resolve the situation privately fell through, escalating frustrations on both ends.

Paystack Maintains It Acted Properly

Though Paystack has refrained from issuing a public statement, a company insider clarified that all necessary legal steps had been taken before their product was released.

“We submitted applications for the ‘Zap’ name in several classes, including those covering financial services,” the source said. “To our understanding, Zap Africa hadn’t secured Class 36 when we made our filing.”

Whether Zap Africa’s registration predated Paystack’s filing for Class 36 now forms the crux of the legal standoff.

Legal Analysts Weigh the Implications

Intellectual property professionals say the situation exemplifies the risks companies face when IP protections are not comprehensive from the start.

“This is a textbook example of trademark pitfalls in a crowded space like fintech,” said Tolu Olaloye, a specialist in IP law with Jackson, Etti & Edu. “Courts have previously ruled that confusion is less likely if trademark classes don’t intersect. But where they do, especially in fintech, it becomes a more serious infringement issue.”

Olaloye advised that both companies consider a compromise outside the courtroom. “Paystack could opt for a light rebranding—tweaking the name or visuals—without dropping the product entirely,” she suggested.

Professor Bankola Sodipo, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria and former law dean at Babcock University, stressed that the real test lies in consumer perception. “The legal question is whether an average user could mistake one brand for the other,” he said.

Brand Confusion Hurts Zap Africa’s Momentum

Zap Africa has already begun feeling the repercussions of the conflict. Dagogo-Hart noted that users are growing anxious about the platform’s future.

“People are asking if we’ll still be around in a few months. That kind of uncertainty can shake a new business at its core,” he explained.

Despite the concerns, he remains hopeful. “We’ve done everything by the rules. We trust the evidence speaks for itself.”

NACCIMA Pushes for Out-of-Court Settlement

Dele Kelvin Oye, who heads the Nigerian Association of Chambers of Commerce, Industry, Mines, and Agriculture (NACCIMA), has called for mediation rather than litigation.

“NACCIMA is open to helping both firms resolve this with assistance from the Trademark Registrar,” Oye stated. “Prolonged court battles could destabilize the fintech sector, discourage future investors, and cause confusion among users.”

He urged both sides to consider using NACCIMA’s Dispute Resolution Centers to reach an agreement quickly.

Key Takeaways for Emerging Startups

The ongoing face-off illustrates the critical need for early, thorough, and strategic trademark protection. In Nigeria’s trademark system, the first to file often gains an edge, but that’s not always decisive. Consistent brand use, goodwill, and filing across related trademark classes also weigh heavily in legal determinations.

“Far too many startups focus exclusively on product features, leaving the brand legally exposed,” Olaloye observed. “Yet a strong brand can be just as valuable as any technology.”

Understanding the Trademark Framework

Nigeria operates under the globally recognized Nice Classification system, which divides trademarks into 45 categories. In this dispute, the main point of conflict is Class 36—financial services—a crucial space for any fintech operator.

Registering a trademark in one class does not protect the brand across others. Companies must think ahead and file in all relevant and adjoining classes to shield their brand identity completely.

Paystack’s Expansion Context

This trademark battle comes just months after Paystack led a takeover of struggling fintech firm Brass in May 2024. The acquisition included other investors like PiggyVest and Olumide Soyombo.

Brass had initially raised $2 million over four years but ran into serious financial trouble, prompting a leadership change. Its original founders, Sola Akindolu and Emmanuel Okeke, have since moved on to new ventures.

Conclusion

The trademark conflict between Zap Africa and Paystack is far more than a fight over a name. It signals a broader challenge within Nigeria’s burgeoning tech ecosystem: the need for proactive, comprehensive protection of brand assets.

With the fintech industry expanding rapidly, disputes like this one are likely to become more common. The takeaway for startups? Secure your brand as thoroughly as your code—before someone else does.