Tanzania expands scope of trademark recordation before customs

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Tanzania expands scope of trademark recordation before customs

Sponsored by

spoor-fisher-400px.png
Packages with flag of Tanzania attached

Duncan Maguire and Paul Ramara of Spoor & Fisher explain how Tanzania’s recently introduced trademark recordation system now accepts ARIPO and foreign registrations, while national filings remain the strongest enforcement tool

Tanzania’s Fair Competition Commission (FCC) has confirmed that the country’s mandatory trademark recordation system has been fully operational since December 1 2025. The system is intended to strengthen border enforcement by enabling customs authorities to identify and detain suspected counterfeit goods with the assistance of recorded trademark rights.

A significant development is the FCC’s revised approach to the types of trademark registrations that may be relied upon for recordation. While the commission had initially accepted only trademarks registered nationally in Tanzania, it has now confirmed that applications may also be supported by African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO) registrations designating Tanzania and foreign trademark registrations, provided a valid registration certificate issued by the relevant authority accompanies the application.

The FCC’s original position reflected the current legal framework in Tanzania. Following a decision of the Court of Appeal, ARIPO trademark registrations designating Tanzania were regarded as unenforceable because the Trade and Service Marks Act, 1986 does not expressly recognise those rights. Consequently, applications for recordation based solely on ARIPO or foreign trademark registrations were previously refused. In guidance issued on April 15 2026, however, the FCC adopted a more flexible administrative approach. Although it continues to recommend obtaining a national Tanzanian trademark registration wherever possible, it has indicated that a broader range of trademark registrations may now be used to support a recordation application.

The commission has also clarified its position regarding pending trademark applications before the Business Registrations and Licensing Agency. Evidence that a trademark application has merely been advertised is insufficient for recordation purposes. Where the applicant also owns a corresponding ARIPO or foreign trademark registration, the relevant registration certificate may instead be submitted. The FCC reserves the right to request additional documentation where necessary to verify the rights relied upon.

The guidance further confirms that only registered trademark rights qualify for recordation. Where imported products bear several different marks, an application may nevertheless proceed if it is based on at least one registered trademark appearing on the goods, even though the remaining marks have not been registered.

Despite the FCC’s willingness to accept ARIPO and foreign trademark registrations for recordation, this should not be viewed as placing those registrations on the same footing as national Tanzanian trademark registrations. A national trademark registration remains the strongest basis for enforcement within Tanzania, while foreign trademark registrations do not themselves confer enforceable rights. ARIPO trademark registrations designating Tanzania remain unenforceable pending legislative reform.

Reports indicate that draft legislation recognising ARIPO trademark registrations designating Tanzania is under consideration. Although the FCC’s revised practice may reflect an expectation of future reform, no timetable has been announced for the enactment of the proposed legislation.

Until the law is amended, businesses seeking effective anti-counterfeiting protection in Tanzania should continue to regard national trademark registration as the preferred enforcement strategy, while reviewing their existing portfolios to determine whether additional filings are required to support customs recordation and broader enforcement efforts.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Drew & Napier’s leadership appointments show one way full-service firms can back up claims about the strategic importance of IP
Strike-out application will hear claims that the copyright aspect of an IP infringement claim brought by a gambling and sports betting group should be dropped
Amongst a sea of mergers, Lathrop GPM and HG Law have set out plans to combine, positioning themselves to compete with both IP boutiques and full-service firms
Patrícia Paias explains why she loves the science and business behind an idea and why potential rights owners must avoid the ‘file and forget’ philosophy
Lawyers eagerly await news of what IP specialist Sir Colin Birss will bring to one of the England and Wales judiciary’s most important roles
María Aurora García of Berken IP explains how intellectual property rights holders can use customs monitoring and online enforcement tools to identify parallel imports and support compliance with consumer protection rules
The Jakarta-based firm says personal networks and a distinctive strategy can help it guide foreign clients through what can be a tricky IP landscape
Munich litigation boutique formed by former Taylor Wessing partners continues expansion as it seeks to cement its position in the UPC market
Yvonne Tang and Siau Wen Lim, the second and third IP specialists to sit on the firm’s management committee, say IP is ‘uniquely positioned’ to support cross-practice work
As competing firms come under common ownership, clients may care less about formal conflicts and more about how openly firms discuss them
Gift this article