Trademark protection across East Africa is often treated by foreign brand owners as a single regional problem with a single regional answer. It is not. Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, and Rwanda sit next to each other on the map and share a customs union, but each one requires a different combination of filing routes, and no single application reaches all four. Getting the route wrong in even one of them can mean discovering, years later, that a mark was never actually protected where it mattered.

Kenya: Direct Filing or Madrid, Never ARIPO

Kenya has ratified the Harare Protocol but not the Banjul Protocol, so ARIPO cannot be used to obtain a Kenyan trademark under any circumstances. The two working routes are a direct application to the Kenya Industrial Property Institute (KIPI), or an international registration under the Madrid Protocol, which Kenya joined in 1998. Both routes go through substantive examination rather than a light-touch formality, and Kenya’s own 1998 accession declarations set an 18-month refusal period rather than the Madrid default of 12 months, so foreign owners relying on Madrid should not expect a quick rubber stamp.

Uganda: The Mirror Image of Kenya

Uganda sits on almost the opposite side of the same divide. It ratified the Banjul Protocol in November 2000, so an ARIPO trademark filing designating Uganda is a live, working route, administered locally once granted. What Uganda does not have is Madrid Protocol membership; it has never joined. A foreign owner cannot reach Uganda through an international Madrid registration at all, and is limited to either an ARIPO designation or a direct national filing with the Uganda Registration Services Bureau (URSB).

Tanzania: A Route That Just Stopped Working

Tanzania is the case that changed mid-2025, and it is worth understanding in some detail because a filing strategy built on last year’s assumptions will now be wrong. Tanzania ratified the Banjul Protocol in 1999 and, on paper, still appears as a contracting state. In September 2025, however, the Court of Appeal of Tanzania held, in Lakairo Industries Group Co. Limited and Others v Kenafrica Industries Limited and Others, Civil Appeal No. 593 of 2022, that Tanzania had never actually domesticated the Banjul Protocol into its own trademark legislation, so ARIPO trademark registrations designating Tanzania carry no legal force there. ARIPO responded with an official notice confirming that, since 23 October 2025, Tanzania is ineligible for Banjul designation until further notice. For now, the only working route into Tanzania is direct national filing, and that filing itself has a further wrinkle: Tanzania’s mainland and Zanzibar operate entirely separate trademark registries under separate legislation, the mainland through the Business Registrations and Licensing Agency (BRELA) and Zanzibar through its own Business and Property Registration Agency. A mainland registration provides no protection in Zanzibar, and a brand owner who wants protection across the whole union has to file, and renew, in both places.

Rwanda: Madrid Works, ARIPO Does Not

Rwanda is a Madrid Protocol member, having joined in August 2013, so an international registration designating Rwanda is a straightforward, working option for foreign owners. What Rwanda has not done is ratify the Banjul Protocol; it does not appear on WIPO’s list of Banjul contracting states, so ARIPO cannot be used to reach Rwanda for trademark purposes any more than it can reach Kenya. A direct national filing with Rwanda’s own IP office remains available as the alternative to Madrid.

No Single Route Covers All Four

Laid side by side, the pattern is that Kenya and Rwanda are reachable through Madrid but not ARIPO, Uganda is reachable through ARIPO but not Madrid, and Tanzania, as of late 2025, is reliably reachable only through direct national filing in both its mainland and Zanzibar registries. A single Madrid or single ARIPO application, sold as a one-stop East African filing, will always leave at least one of these four countries unprotected. The only safe approach is to check each country’s current treaty status and its domestic enforceability, not just its position on a membership list, before deciding how to file.

The Tanzania development also has a retrospective side worth flagging to any client with an existing portfolio. A brand owner who filed through ARIPO years ago on the reasonable assumption that a ratified protocol meant a working registration in Tanzania now has to treat that registration as unenforceable there until Tanzania completes domestication, however long that takes. The Court of Appeal’s reasoning was not that anything changed in October 2025; it was that the underlying position had always been this way, and simply had not been tested in litigation before. That is a useful reminder that “we have always filed it this way” is not the same as “this route has been judicially confirmed,” particularly in a regional system where four different national legislatures each decide independently whether to give a shared treaty domestic effect.

How We Can Help

Clay & Associates Advocates advises foreign brand owners and instructing counsel on building trademark filing strategies that actually hold up across Kenya and its neighboring East African markets, rather than assuming one regional filing covers the region. Our guide to protecting a brand in Kenya covers the Kenyan route in detail, and our piece on ARIPO vs OAPI explains the wider regional split this article builds on. Contact our Intellectual Property practice to plan a multi-country East African filing programme.

Sources: WIPO Lex, Banjul Protocol contracting parties; WIPO Madrid Union membership list (status July 8, 2026); Lakairo Industries Group Co. Limited and Others v Kenafrica Industries Limited and Others, Civil Appeal No. 593 of 2022 (Court of Appeal of Tanzania, 26 September 2025); ARIPO official notice, 24 October 2025; Trade and Service Marks Act, Cap. 326 (Tanzania Mainland); Zanzibar Industrial Property Act.

Frequently asked questions

Can one Madrid Protocol filing cover Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, and Rwanda together?
No. Uganda and Tanzania are not Madrid Protocol members, so a Madrid designation only reaches Kenya and Rwanda among these four.

Can one ARIPO filing cover all four countries?
No. Kenya and Rwanda have not ratified the Banjul Protocol, and Tanzania has been suspended from Banjul designation since October 2025, so an ARIPO trademark filing currently only reaches Uganda among these four.

Is an ARIPO trademark registration designating Tanzania still valid?
Existing registrations are affected by the same reasoning as new filings: Tanzania’s Court of Appeal held the Banjul Protocol was never domesticated into Tanzanian law, so ARIPO trademark rights have no legal force there regardless of when they were obtained.

Does a Tanzanian mainland trademark registration protect a brand in Zanzibar?
No. Mainland Tanzania and Zanzibar run separate trademark registries under separate legislation, and protection in one does not extend to the other.