1. 1
Trademark Law in the African Intellectual Property Organization (OAPI) Jurisdiction under
the Bangui Agreement of March 2, 1977
By Ferdinand Doh Galabe
Legal Consultant
The legal and institutional framework for trademark law and practice in the AIPO jurisdiction is
Annex III of the “Agreement revising the Bangui Agreement of March 2, 1977, on the creation of
an African Intellectual Property Organization”, signed at Bangui (the political capital of Central
African Republic) on February, 24th 1999 (hereinafter known as the Bangui Agreement).
The OAPI comprises of seventeen (17) member states namely: Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon,
Central African Republic, Chad, Congo-Brazzaville, Cote d’Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon,
Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Senegal, Togo, and Comoros Islands the
seventeenth member State which joined AIPO in March 2013.
One of the main advantages of this Organization is that any filing effected with the Organisation
covers all the seventeen (17) member States.
First to file/first to use
The general rule pertaining to the ownership of a trademark as laid down by Article 5 of Annex III
of the Bangui Agreement is to the effect that the ownership of a mark shall vest in the person who
files it first. Registration of trademarks in use is therefore very crucial in the OAPI jurisdiction and
the party who overlooks the importance of registration does it at his own risk and peril. The better
you protect your IP rights the easier it tends to be to enforce it.
Nevertheless, the same Article 5 is also protective of the rights of those who have a prior right to
use a mark. Therefore, where a mark has been filed by a person who, at the time of the filing, knew
or should have known that another person had a prior right to use the said trademark, the first to use
may file a claim of ownership of the mark with the OAPI within six (06) months following the
publication of the record of the first filing. Following inter partes proceedings before the
Commission, the Commission shall rule on the claim of ownership. The prior usage of the
trademark can only be evidenced by written or printed matter or documents contemporaneous with
the facts that they seek to establish.
Definition of Trademark/Service Mark
According to Article 2, Annex III of the Bangui Agreement, the following are recognized as
trademarks and service marks; “any visible signs used or intended to be used and capable of
distinguishing the goods or services of any enterprise…,including in particular surnames by
themselves or in a distinctive form, special, arbitrary or fanciful designations, the characteristic
form of a product or its packaging, labels, wrappers, emblems, prints, stamps, seals, vignettes,
borders, combinations or arrangements of colors, drawings, reliefs, letters, numbers, devices, and
pseudonyms.”

2. 2
Collective marks are trademarks or service marks, according to Article 2 above, which may be used
only by enterprises of public character, unions or groups of unions, associations, groups of
producers, manufacturers, craftsmen or tradesmen who possess legal personality.
The conditions for their use are laid down in rules approved by the competent authority.
Well Known Marks/ Defensive Trademarks
Well known marks are determined as such following circumstantial evidence adduced by the party
seeking to establish their marks as well known. Such information may include, but may not be
limited to:
1) The degree of knowledge or recognition of the mark in the relevant sector of the Public;
2) The duration, extent and geographical area of any use of the mark;
3) The duration, extent and geographical area of any promotion of the mark, including advertising
or publicity and the presentation, at fairs or exhibitions, of the goods and/or services to which the
mark applies;
4) The duration and geographical area of any registrations, and/or any applications for registration,
of the mark, to the extent that they reflect use or recognition of the mark;
5) The record of successful enforcement of rights in the mark, in particular, the extent to which the
mark was recognized as well known by competent authorities;
6) The value associated with the mark.
The Bangui Agreement does not specifically define the legal status of owners of a well-known
mark, but refers to Article 6bis of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property,
and Article 16 paragraphs 2 and 3 of the TRIPS Agreement.
Article 6bis of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, provides that, “(1) The
countries of the Union undertake, ex officio if their legislation so permits, or at the request of an
interested party, to refuse or to cancel the registration, and to prohibit the use, of a trademark
which constitutes a reproduction, an imitation, or a translation, liable to create confusion, of a
mark considered by the competent authority of the country of registration or use to be well known
in that country as being already the mark of a person entitled to the benefits of this Convention and
used for identical or similar goods. These provisions shall also apply when the essential part of the
mark constitutes a reproduction of any such well–known mark or an imitation liable to create
confusion therewith. (2) A period of at least five years from the date of registration shall be allowed
for requesting the cancellation of such a mark. The countries of the Union may provide for a period
within which the prohibition of use must be requested. (3) No time limit shall be fixed for requesting
the cancellation or the prohibition of the use of marks registered or used in bad faith.”
The owner of a well-known mark may apply to the court of one of the member States for the
invalidation on the national territory of one of the member States, of the effects of the filing of a
mark liable to be confused with his own.
The owner of a well-known mark cannot bring an action against a bona fide applicant after a period
of five (5) years has lapsed since the latter’s application.
The TRIPS Agreement is a treaty that stipulates minimum requirements for trademark protection.
Article 16 paragraphs 2 and 3 of the TRIPS Agreement provide that member states of IP
jurisdictions may recognize trademark rights to well-known marks on the basis of use alone.

3. 3
A defensive trademark can be applied for by a trademark owner of a well-known trademark for
goods or services that the owner does not intend to use. Defensive trademarks are filed to reduce the
possibility of other traders using the trade mark for unrelated goods or services. One characteristic
of Defensive Trademarks is that they cannot be struck off for non-use.
The Bangui Agreement does not make mention of Defensive Trademarks. We should however note
that Article 23 of the Bangui Agreement states that “At the request of any interested party, the court
may order the cancellation of any registered mark which, for an uninterrupted period of five years
prior to the request, has not been used on the national territory of one of the member states, except
where the registered owner has legitimate reasons for having failed to use it. Cancellation may be
extended to all or part of the goods or services for which the said mark was registered.”
We therefore see that with a Defensive Trademark, the owner can file for goods or services that
they do not intend to use. Whereas according to the Bangui Agreement, when you file a Trademark
it must be used on the national territory of one of the Member States, or risk having the trademark
cancelled either in whole or part of the goods or services for which the said mark was registered.
Absolute grounds for Refusal
According to Article 3 of Annex III of the Bangui Agreement, there are four absolute grounds upon
which a trademark application may be rejected. They are as follows:
- It is devoid of distinctiveness, e.g., a computer company whose purported trademark is a
computer device or logo. The trademark application of the same company will be valid if it
were an apple logo;
- It is contrary to public policy, morality or the law;
- It is liable to mislead the public or business circles, especially as to the geographical origin,
nature or the characteristics of the goods or services in question;
- It reproduces, imitates or incorporates armorial bearings, flags or other emblems, the
abbreviated name or acronym or an official sign or hallmark indicating control and warranty
of a State or intergovernmental organization established by an international convention,
except where the competent authority of that State or of that organization has given its
permission.
We might also note that applications for registration which do not respect conditions of form (filing
procedures and requirements such as the POA, and priority documents if priority is claimed) shall
not mature.
Normally, a three (3) month period is granted for the applicant to regularize following official
notification by AIPO. This period might be extended by thirty (30) days in cases of proven
necessity at the applicant’s behest. A six months period is generally awarded to file priority
documents. Where such discrepancies are not attended to within this deadline, the application is
purely and simply rejected.
Included in the particulars of filing is the mandatory proof of payment document, failing which the
application shall not be acceptable.

4. 4
Rejection is pronounced by the Director General of OAPI. If an application is rejected by the
organization, the applicant has sixty (60) days to lodge an appeal against the decision at the High
Commission of Appeal.
Relative grounds for Refusal
- It resembles another mark to the point that it is liable to create confusion or mislead or it is
identical to an already registered trademark or the filing or priority date of which is earlier,
and which relate to the same goods or services (see Nice Classification);
- It reproduces, imitates or incorporates official emblems, acronyms or signs or hallmarks
indicating control or warranty of a State or intergovernmental organization established by an
international convention, except the latter has given its permission.
Note that oppositions to trademarks are not initiated by OAPI. OAPI simply examines applications
to ensure that the form/ procedures laid down have been respected, application fees have been paid,
and relevant documents duly forwarded. Interested parties are guardians and watchdogs of their
Intellectual Property (IP) rights and are expected to enforce their rights against third party
infringement through court action or by the competent OAPI organs. They possess, according to
Article 7 (2), the exclusive rights to prevent third party infringement.
Infringement
Exclusive ownership of a mark and effects thereof vest in the individual who has duly filed for
registration in accordance with Article 8, Annex III of the Bangui Agreement (which relates to
filing requirements and procedures).
Registration of a mark likewise confers on the owner the exclusive right to prevent all third parties
from making use in business without his consent, of identical or similar signs for goods or services
that are themselves similar to those for which the trademark or service mark has been registered
where such use is liable to cause confusion. Note that where an identical sign is used for identical
goods and services, a risk of confusion shall be presumed to exist.
As such, the owner of a mark enjoys exclusive rights to bring an action or institute civil and
criminal proceedings against third party infringement. Beneficiaries of an exclusive right of use
may also bring an action if the owner fails to act having been called upon to do so.
Civil Action for the infringement of a mark shall be brought by the owner thereof. However, the
beneficiary of an exclusive right of use may bring an infringement action, unless otherwise
provided in the contract, if the owner fails to act after having been called upon to do so.
Any action for infringement of a subsequently registered mark whose use has been tolerated for
three (03) years shall be inadmissible except where it has been filed for registration in bad faith
(foreclosure by tolerance). The inadmissibility of the action shall be confined to those goods and
services for which the use was tolerated.
The following constitute an infringing act:
- Bad faith application of a prior registered right belonging to the trademark owner (conflict
with a prior right);

5. 5
- Those who fraudulently affix on their goods or on objects traded by them of a mark
belonging to another;
- Use of identical or similar signs, for goods or services that are themselves similar, which are
liable to cause confusion. The onus is on the defendant to rebut this presumption;
- Unlawful exploitation of a registered trademark;
- Fraudulent imitation of a mark in such a manner as to mislead the buyer;
- Use of a fraudulently imitated mark;
- Intentional sale or offer for sale, or provision of goods or services under counterfeit or
fraudulent marks;
- Intentional sale or offer for sale of goods or services bearing a fraudulently imitated mark or
information liable to mislead the buyer as to the nature of the goods;
- Intentional provision or offer of goods or services under marks which have been
fraudulently imitated, affixed, counterfeited or bearing information liable to mislead the
buyer as to the nature of the goods;
- Use of a mark bearing information liable to mislead the buyer as to the nature of the goods;
- Sale or offer for sale of goods bearing a collective mark unlawfully used;
- Intentional use of invalidated collective marks or marks reproducing or imitating invalidated
collective marks within a period of ten (10) years following the date of invalidation.
These actions shall be brought before the civil courts and judged as summary proceedings.
Exceptions to Infringement
These are generally the result of negligence on the part of the trademark owner to steward his mark
faithfully. They include:
- Third parties who start to use a mark after expiration of registration (trademark owner’s
failure to renew after ten years) shall have the right to continue such use even after the
trademark owner has successfully effected late renewal or restoration as the case may be;
- Inadmissibility of action for infringement of a subsequently registered mark whose use has
been tolerated for three (3) years, except such a mark was filed in bad faith. (Inadmissibility
restricted to goods and services for which the use is tolerated);
- Unenforceability of unrecorded and unpublished (Special Register of Marks) transfer of
ownership rights or licensing rights of exploitation against third parties;
- Use in good faith of the name, address, pseudonym, a geographical name, or accurate
information concerning the nature, quality, quantity, purpose, value, place of origin or time
of production of trademark owner’s goods or rendering of his services in so far as the use in
question is limited to the purpose of mere identification or information and cannot mislead
the public as to the source of the goods or services;
- Use of mark in relation to goods that have been lawfully sold under the mark on the national
territory of the member State, on condition that the goods have not undergone any alteration;
Registration confers proprietary rights to the trademark owner; as such no person can enforce any
right referred to in the Bangui Agreement pertaining to a trademark of which he has not filed for
registration with the Organization pursuant to its prescribed rules of filing. Rights relating to prior
usage are generally enforceable through claim of ownership applications, where a mala fides third
party has gone ahead of the prior user to effect a malicious registration.

6. 6
Exhaustion of Rights Or First Sale Doctrine (Parallel Imports)
Note that during the Uruguay negotiations, it was agreed that this matter should be left at the
discretion of member states, and Art. 6 of the TRIPS Agreement adopted the same approach,
subject to member states respecting the principles of national treatment and most favoured nations
inscribed in its instrument.
It is a generally accepted principle of intellectual property law that the exclusive rights of sale and
distribution belonging to a right holder expire the moment he puts the product in the market or from
the moment the product reaches the market with his consent, and that the right holder can no longer
exercise any form of control over the circulation (sale, transfer or distribution) of the product as
long as they are authentic and original. These limitation of rights do not affect an action that the
right holder can bring against unauthorized reproduction or public broadcasting.
While it is generally accepted that there is an exhaustion of rights in the territory where the product
in question is introduced, it is still unsettled whether or not the principle of exhaustion applies when
the product is introduced in a foreign market. The answer will depend on the exhaustion regime
applicable; international or national. This answer will determine whether or not parallel imports will
be acceptable as fair practice.
In a jurisdiction which applies the regime of national exhaustion, the right holder’s rights are
exhausted by the introduction of his product in the local market, but his rights will not be regarded
as exhausted relative to products which he introduced or authorized their introduction in foreign
markets. As such, he maintains control over the distribution and importation of products placed in
the foreign market in the local market. As such he can prevent the importation of products he placed
in a foreign market into the country of origin.
On the other hand, in a jurisdiction where the regime of international exhaustion of rights is
applicable, the right holder’s rights of distribution are exhausted in that territory no matter where
the product was first introduced, and he can no longer exercise any rights to prevent importation of
such products which he introduced in other markets. As such parallel imports are legally valid in
countries which apply an international exhaustion of rights regime.
IP rights being territorial and the AIPO constituting one and the same territory of 17 member states,
and hence a common market, the doctrine of exhaustion of rights will apply to the 17 AIPO member
states, hence a regime of regional exhaustion of rights. The AIPO does not recognize rights
pertaining to trademark owners to control the distribution of goods or prohibit the importation of
goods introduced in foreign markets, as such, it can be deduced that the regime applied by the
Bangui agreement is the international exhaustion of rights (Art. 7(4)). This should be read together
with ANNEX VIII of the Bangui Agreement on Protection Against Unfair Competition which
sanctions acts contrary to honest practice. However ANNEX VIII does not include parallel imports
in its categorization of acts which constitute dishonest practice.
Further, according to the list of infringing acts in the Bangui Agreement, the commercial
exploitation of goods that have already been placed in the market of one of the member states of
AIPO or outside the AIPO jurisdiction does not constitute an infringement. It can be inferred that
the rights have therefore been exhausted (regional exhaustion).

7. 7
Remedies for Infringement
Remedies for infringement in the AIPO jurisdiction are manifold. They can be initiated either at the
level of the adjudicating organs of AIPO or at the level of the courts. At the level of the civil and
criminal courts the following can be obtained:
- Punitive measures (imposition of penalties in the form of fines, imprisonment and
deprivation of rights to participate in professional groups for up to a period of ten years);
- The court may order the confiscation, and or destruction, of goods bearing a mark
recognized as infringing and also that of the implements that served specifically for the
commission of the offense ;
- Where a registered trademark has not been exploited for the past five (5) years in an
uninterrupted manner in one of the national territories of a member State, the court may at
the request of any interested party order the cancellation of the said trademark;
- Invalidation: a proceeding which is initiated by the Office of the Public Prosecutor, a
professional group or any interested party to invalidate a mark which does not constitute a
sign recognized as a mark according to the Bangui Agreement, or is not a mark eligible for
registration according to the Bangui Agreement, or against a mark which conflicts with a
prior right.
- Where the registration conflicts with a prior right, invalidation may only be pronounced at
the request of the owner of the prior right.
- The owner of the mark may bring a civil action for the infringement of his mark in which
case he may also recover damages for prejudice suffered;
- The opposing party may also file an application for the issuance of an infringement
seizure order before the president of the civil court within whose jurisdiction the action is
to be taken (such an order involves the making of a detailed inventory, with or without
seizure, of the goods or services infringed).
Additionally, an aggrieved party may have recourse to organs of OAPI for redress. The following
options are open to him:
- Claim of ownership: where the aggrieved party desires to enforce his prior usage rights
against a mala fides (malicious) registrant. Here, OAPI may simply cancel the infringing
party’s mark from the registry;
- Oppositions: These are generally actions brought before OAPI Opposition Commission by
interested parties opposing the registration of a mark which either doesn’t fall under the
category of signs recognized as marks or marks eligible for registration, or based on
infringement, by the applicant, of a prior registered right belonging to the opposing party.
- Other Causes of Litigation: There are other reasons which may invite trademark owners to
seek relief from the OAPI registry, particularly, in the case of restoration of trademark
rights and restoration of priority rights (Restoration Commission) in the case of failure to file
priority documents within six (06) months of filing of trademark. Classically, owing to
circumstances beyond his control, a trademark owner may forget to renew his title in time
and miss the six (06) months deadline to renew. In this case he can file for restoration of
rights of mark or priority claim as the case may be.

8. 8
Generally, in the case of restoration of rights the owner is expected to pay the requisite renewal fees
due every ten (10) years, and a late renewal fees, within six (06) months from the date on which the
said circumstances ceased to exist, and at the latest within a period of two years from the date on
which renewal was due.
The restoration applicant is expected to file a statement of the grounds on which the owner or the
entitled persons consider the restoration justified. The restoration commission shall examine the
application and accept or reject the application depending on whether it considers the grounds
raised valid or not. Appeal shall lie with the High Commission of Appeal within thirty (30) days
following notification of the restoration decision.
Rights of Licensees including Exclusive Licensees
The rights subsisting in a mark shall be freely transferable in whole or in part.
The licensing of the right of exploitation of a mark shall be evidenced by writing, duly signed by
the parties, on pain of invalidity. It may relate to all or some of the goods or services to which the
mark applies. Its validity may be limited to the national territory of one of the member States.
The duration of a license may not be longer than that of the registration of a mark.
Unless the license is registered in the Special Register of Marks of OAPI and published in the
official Bulletin of OAPI, it remains unenforceable against third parties.
In the absence of provisions to the contrary in the license contract, the grant of a license shall not
preclude the licensor from either granting licenses to other persons, subject to notifying the licensee,
or from using the mark himself.
The grant of an exclusive license shall preclude the licensor from granting licenses to other persons
and, in the absence of provisions to the contrary in the license contract, from using the mark
himself.
In the absence of contrary provisions in the license contract, the license shall not be assignable to
third parties and the licensee shall not be authorized to grant sublicenses.
Restrictions not derived from rights conferred by the registration of the mark or not requisite for
enforcement of such rights, imposed on licensee by license contract shall be invalid. Such invalid
clauses shall be identified by a civil court at the request of any interested party.
Any party to a license contract shall be eligible to intervene in infringement proceedings brought by
another party in order to secure compensation for prejudice specific to him. An exclusive licensee
may bring an infringement action, unless otherwise provided for by the license contract, if the
licensor fails to act after having been called upon to do so.
Recent Developments

9. 9
Prior to 1977, the AIPO organization was known as Office Africain et Malgache de la Propriete
Intellectuelle (OAMPI), consisting of all 17 member states but for Guinea Conakry, Guinea Bissau,
Mali, Equatorial Guinea and Comoros Islands. Madagascar was the member that withdrew
following the transition from OAMPI to AIPO.
The Comoros Islands is officially a member state of AIPO. This accession to the Bangui Agreement
came into force on May 25, 2013. As was the case with Guinea Bissau/Conakry & Mali in 1998 and
Equatorial Guinea back in 2000, rights have to be extended from Comoros Island to AIPO and vice
versa. As at November 2013, extension fees from a new member state to AIPO costs 250,000 FCFA
and from AIPO to a new member state costs 37,500 FCFA. Note that Equatorial Guinea which
joined the Agreement back in 2000 still maintains national applications and still clings, on the most
part, unto her sovereignty in matters of administration of Intellectual Property.
Any Trademark filed from May 25, 2013 shall automatically include all seventeen (17) member
states. However, for IP rights that were filed before May 25, the protection shall cover only the 16
member states - even if the Registration Certificate is issued after this date. This is a classic
application of the principle of non-retrospective application of laws. In AIPO registration date
equals filing date, hence this rule.
OAPI has indicated that Trademark owners have twenty (20) months to extend rights within OAPI
to cover Comoros Islands and vice versa. Any Trademark which is due renewal within the twenty
month deadline shall be automatically renewed to cover all 17 member states. As such, an extension
is necessary for renewal that falls after the twenty month deadline. Failure to extend will result to
the trademark owner losing their rights. Late extension invites a penalty of 77 Euros. Note that the
deadline for late extension is not stipulated in the AIPO circular on extension of rights. Rights
holders simply have a period of twenty (20) months to extend, and may extend any time after that
period subject to the payment of a 77 Euros penalty.
Another innovation at the AIPO is the appearance of registration certificates which has changed
significantly. It used to take the appearance of a decision by the Director of AIPO on a simple plain
sheet without the figure of the mark itself, however the certificate, bearing the semblance of an
American style yellow letters patent, now bears the image of the worded, figurative or complex
mark.
Also the AIPO announced during the course of 2013 that it was working to make the database of
trademarks publicly accessible online. The conditions of access to the database were not revealed at
the time of the announcement. However, the online bulletins are currently available online at
www.oapi.int. On December 24, 2013, AIPO Director General signed a circular letter informing
interested parties that pursuant to Administrative Decision No.
00005/OAPI/DG/DGA/DAJ/SAJ/MAM, the first edition of the online database is accessible online
since December 10, 2013 on the official website of OAPI: www.oapi.int. The publication online of
registered trademarks does not in any way change the time limit to file an opposition within six
months of online publication of trademarks.
Comments:

10. 10
The peculiarity of the Bangui Agreement must be underlined. It regroups seventeen (17) member
States under one jurisdiction, who have all acceded to the following international instruments
relevant to trademark owners and interested parties:
- Trademark Registration Treaty at Vienna on June 12th, 1973;
- Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property of March 20th, 1883, revised at
Stockholm on July 14th , 1967;
- Lisbon Agreement of October 31st, 1958, revised at Stockholm on July 14th, 1967;
- WIPO Convention signed at Stockholm on July 14th, 1967;
- Nairobi Treaty on the Protection of the Olympic Symbol of 1981;
- Marrakech Agreement Establishing the WTO including the TRIPS Agreement of April 15th,
1994.
Timelines
At OAPI, an applicant can request for a Trademark availability search. The results are issued by
OAPI within ten (10) working days, everything being equal.
After filing for a Trademark registration, the applicant is issued with a provisional proof of filing
bearing the stamp of OAPI.
Within three months from filing, OAPI issues the official filing receipt which bears the official
filing number and date.
The Registration Certificate is usually issued between eight (08) to ten (10) months from filing.
Accession of Comoros Islands
Comoros Islands deposited its instrument of ratification of the Bangui Agreement on March 25,
2013, pursuant to article 22(4) of the Bangui Agreement. It became a full member of the
organization on May 25, 2013.
Pursuant to Articles 45 & 46 of the said Agreement and the Order relative to extension of rights
following the accession of a new member state to the Bangui Agreement:
- IP rights in force in Comoros Islands prior to its accession to the Agreement will continue to
be in force in Comoros Islands pursuant to local legislation in force;
- Holders of rights in the Comoros Islands who wish to extend their rights into OAPI, before
their expiration will have to file an application for extension of rights with OAPI according
to the procedures stipulated in the applicable Rule;
- Holders of rights in OAPI prior to the accession of Comoros Islands to OAPI or those whose
applications were filed prior to Comoros Islands’ accession to OAPI , and who wish to
extend their rights to Comoros Islands will have to file an application to that effect before
OAPI according to the procedures stipulated in the applicable Rule;
- Applications for extension must be filed within a time limit of twenty (20) months from the
effective date of entry of Comoros Islands into OAPI. IP rights which would not have been
introduced within this deadline may be introduced at any time during the lifespan of the
right, subject to the payment of an additional (penalty) fees for late filing provided by the
Rules on administrative fees;

11. 11
- The renewal of the protection of rights (trademarks, commercial names, industrial designs)
of which no extension applications have been filed before their anniversary dates will result
to an automatic extension of the rights in the OAPI territory;
- Beginning from May 25, 2013, trademark registrations filed at OAPI, including PCT patent
(Paris Convention) applications, will have effect within the seventeen (17) member states of
OAPI.
The official fees to extend from OAPI to Comoros Islands = 58 Euros
The official fees to extend from Comoros Islands to OAPI = 382 Euros
Late extension surcharge = 77 Euros
Note that according to the Bangui Agreement, IP rights which are duly filed nationally within
the newly acceded member states after accession and duly registered by them may not be
extended to OAPI. This is a device by OAPI to make sure that member states are faithful to
their treaty commitments.
Application for Extension of Trademark from OAPI to Comoros Islands & Vice Versa
The application includes a filled form (M ex 301), proof of payment of OAPI official filing fees as
indicated above, a simply signed special power of attorney (POA), and photocopies of the
registration certificate of the trademark. As in all applications these documents are transmitted via a
forwarding letter addressed to the General Manager of OAPI.
Official Fees:
1) Trademark Availability Search
-Trademark availability search in one class (up to three classes): 95.000 FCFA or 146 Euros;
For any additional class after the first three classes: an additional 10.000 FCFA or 16 Euros.
2) Trademark Registration
Filing a Trademark application in the first three classes, obtaining the Certificate of Registration,
and Publication: 400.000 FCFA or 611 Euros;
Any additional class after the first three classes: an additional 82.000 FCFA or 126 Euros;
Colour publication: an additional 50.000 FCFA or 77 Euros;
If a priority is claimed: an additional 75.000 FCFA or 115 Euros for each priority claim.
3) Trademark Renewal
Renewal charges: 400.000 FCFA or 611 Euros;
Per class renewed: 100.000 FCFA or 153 Euros;
Late renewal within six months following the renewal date: 130.000 FCFA or 199 Euros.

12. 12
4) Trademark Inscription
For each Inscription in the Special Trademark Register (changes having to do with the property of
the Trademark, Assignment, Change of Name, Change of Address, Merging of Companies, Change
of Legal Form, Annulation or Expiration of Trademark License): 265.000 FCFA or 405 Euros.
Note that AIPO does not accept applications for changes on the essence of the trademark itself.
5) Oppositions
The official fee for Oppositions before OAPI is 150.000 FCFA or 230 Euros
6) Corrections
For correction of an error on the application forms before publication: 61 Euros;
For correction of an error on the application forms after publication: 92 Euros.
7) Appeals
Fees for appeals lodged at the High Commission of Appeal are 960,000 FCFA or 1466 Euros