African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO) Member States

ARIPO and the Lusaka Agreement

The African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO) was established under the Lusaka Agreement, signed on 9 December 1976, and became operational in 1978.

ARIPO is an intergovernmental international organization established to promote cooperation among African countries in the field of intellectual property, harmonize systems, and facilitate filing procedures.

Rather than operating as a single unified system, the ARIPO framework is built upon multiple protocols regulating different categories of intellectual property rights.

Today, ARIPO has 22 member states.

Structure of the ARIPO System

The ARIPO system is:

• Not a single centralized system
• Based on a protocol-oriented (modular) structure
• Member states may accede to each protocol separately
• The validity and enforceability of rights largely depend on national laws

A. ARIPO Member States — 22 Countries

B. ARIPO Protocols and Their Scope

ARIPO administers several protocols governing different categories of intellectual property rights:

1. Harare Protocol (Patents and Designs)

• Harare Protocol
• Covers patents, utility models, and industrial designs
• The most widely used ARIPO system
• Approximately 20 member states are party to this protocol

2. Banjul Protocol (Trademarks)

• Banjul Protocol
• Governs regional trademark applications
• Approximately 13 countries participate in this system
• Direct applicability may be limited in certain jurisdictions

System Features

• A 6-month Paris Convention priority period applies to trademark applications
• Applicants may designate the countries in which protection is sought
• Certain member states may refuse protection based on national legislation

Note 1: In certain countries such as Ghana, Malawi, and Sierra Leone, legal uncertainties may arise regarding the enforceability of trademarks registered through ARIPO due to the incomplete incorporation (“domestication”) of the Banjul Protocol into domestic law. Accordingly, local legal analysis is particularly important in trademark disputes.

Note 2: Under the Madrid Protocol, ARIPO does not function as a single “organization designation” in the same way as OAPI. Instead, the relevant ARIPO member states must be designated individually in international trademark applications.

3. Arusha Protocol (Plant Varieties)

• Arusha Protocol
• Protection of new plant varieties
• A newer system with more limited participation

4. Swakopmund Protocol (Traditional Knowledge)

• Swakopmund Protocol
• Protection of traditional knowledge and folklore
• Adopted in 2010

5. Kampala Protocol (Copyright)

• Kampala Protocol
• Voluntary registration of copyright
• A relatively new and developing system

C. Operation of the Systems (General Overview)

Common features of ARIPO systems include:

• Single application with multiple country designations
• Centralized processing by the ARIPO Office
• However, the validity of rights:
  • Depends on national laws
  • In some cases, countries may issue objections (opt-outs)

Accordingly, ARIPO:

• Is not a fully unitary system
• Has a more decentralized and flexible structure compared to European regional systems

D. Validation or Extension System

Within the ARIPO framework:

• There is no separate validation system comparable to the EPC
• Nor is there a single unitary patent system as under the EAPO framework

Protection is limited to:

• Countries party to the relevant protocol
• And the countries designated at the time of filing

E. Notes on the System

• ARIPO is one of the two major regional intellectual property systems in Africa (the other being OAPI)
• The system is particularly influential in Eastern and Southern Africa
• Most member states are English-speaking countries
• Different categories of rights require different strategic considerations (patents ≠ trademarks ≠ plant varieties)
• Unlike OAPI, ARIPO generally allows country designation for most rights
• The ARIPO system operates largely in conjunction with national laws and is not a fully centralized or unitary system
• Although Tanzania is an ARIPO member state, the industrial property systems of mainland Tanzania and Zanzibar are partially distinct. ARIPO registrations generally produce effect in mainland Tanzania, while separate national procedures may be required for Zanzibar in certain cases.

Note: Particularly in trademark and patent matters, it should be assessed on a case-by-case basis whether separate local protection is required for Zanzibar.

Sources:

• https://www.aripo.org/member-states
• https://inspire.wipo.int/system/files/juri/ARIPO.pdf
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Regional_Intellectual_Property_Organization

Last updated: May 2026