Crypto firm tackles Paystack over brand name as fintech unveils payment app ‘Zap’

A legal dispute may be brewing between Paystack, a Nigerian financial technology (fintech) company, and Zap Africa, a cryptocurrency exchange platform, over the use of the name “Zap“.

On Monday, Paystack launched Zap, a mobile app designed to speed up bank transfers.

Shola Akinlade, the chief executive officer (CEO) of Paystack, clarified that the app is not a new banking service but a tool focused on making money transfers faster and more reliable.

“Zap isn’t trying to be a new bank. It is just focused on one thing—bank transfers, fast. And that’s it,” Akinlade said.

However, Zap Africa, founded in 2023 to facilitate cryptocurrency and fiat transactions across Africa, swiftly reacted, tackling Paystack’s choice of name for its payment app.

“There is only one ZAP in Nigeria and Africa,” the cryptocurrency exchange wrote on X, formerly Twitter.

On Tuesday, Tobi Asu Johnson, Zap Africa’s CEO, took to X to announce the company’s legal team will contact Paystack for using the “trademarked” name.

“Our name is trademarked and we’re on it. Zap’s legal team will be reaching out to Paystack shortly,” he wrote.

The cryptocurrency firm also issued a disclaimer via X, saying that the company is the only ‘Zap’ that should be used.

‘OWNERSHIP DOESN’T GUARANTY EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS’

Speaking on the potential lawsuit, Temitope Omotayo, a legal expert, told TheCable that trademark disputes in Nigeria typically depend on proper registration with the federal ministry of trade and whether consumers in the same industry are likely to be confused by the similar names.

“One of the foundational hallmarks of trademark law in Nigeria is registration,” he said.

“It is not just about having a name, but about whether the company has officially registered it with the federal ministry of trade’s trademark office. Without this, there is no solid ground for a claim.”

Omotayo added that even with a registered trademark, ownership does not guarantee exclusive rights.

He said a court ruling would depend on the specific objectives of both businesses and the level of consumer confusion the name similarity could cause.

“For example, if one company is called ZAP Oil Limited and another is ZAP Salt Limited, there may be no legal issue because their objectives are different,” he said.

“However, if two companies operate in the same industry with similar names such as the famous Nigerian Chemist vs. Niger Chemist case, it could cause confusion in the eyes of the public and be grounds for infringement.

“It depends on the objective, when we have the full facts and if they present it to court, court will be able to know whether there is an infringement or not.”

As of the time of this report, Paystack has not issued any public statement regarding Zap Exchange’s allegations.