Amendments to the Banjul Protocol Effective 01 March 2026: What Zimbabwe Brand Owners Need to Know on Fees, Timelines and Evidence of Use

The Banjul Protocol amendments that entered into force on 01 March 2026 represent the most significant overhaul of ARIPO’s regional trademark system in over a decade. For businesses that designate Zimbabwe through ARIPO, the changes touch every stage of the registration lifecycle, from higher official fees and compressed procedural windows to entirely new evidence-of-use obligations that did not previously exist at the regional level. This guide distils the amended Banjul Protocol on Marks (2026 Edition) into the practical detail that in-house counsel, brand owners and local agents need: exact fee items, updated timelines, acceptable forms of proof, and a step-by-step remediation checklist to bring existing portfolios into compliance.

Quick Summary, What Changed and the Immediate Impact

The 2026 amendments affect every ARIPO trademark application and registration that includes Zimbabwe as a designated state. Three headline changes demand immediate attention:

• Effective date. The amended Banjul Protocol on Marks (2026 Edition) took effect on 01 March 2026 and applies to both new filings and pending applications from that date forward.
• Fee increases and new fee items. ARIPO’s revised fee schedule introduces updated transmittal fees, adjusted designation and class fees, and a restructured opposition-fee framework, all payable in United States dollars.
• Evidence-of-use requirements introduced. For the first time at the regional level, the amended implementing regulations require applicants to demonstrate genuine use (or an intention to use followed by proof) in connection with designated goods or services, aligning ARIPO practice more closely with national-law expectations under Zimbabwe’s Trade Marks Act (Chapter 26:04).

Brand owners who have not yet audited their ARIPO portfolios against these changes risk missed deadlines, under-budgeted renewals and, in the worst case, vulnerability to cancellation for non-use. The sections below set out exactly what changed and what to do about it.

What Exactly Changed Under the Banjul Protocol Amendments

The ARIPO amendments 2026 package touches the Protocol text itself as well as the Implementing Regulations and official forms. Below is a structured breakdown of the four most consequential changes for Zimbabwe designations.

Implementing Regulations Updates

The 2026 Edition rewrites several rules governing formalities examination, communication between ARIPO and designated offices, and the format of notifications to applicants. Key procedural shifts include standardised electronic filing requirements, updated model forms, and tighter prescribed timeframes for office actions. The practical effect is that agents must now respond to formal deficiency notices within shorter windows than those that applied under the previous edition of the Banjul Protocol.

New Fee Items and Adjusted Charges

The revised fee schedule restructures the cost of obtaining and maintaining ARIPO trademark protection. Notable changes include an updated transmittal fee payable on filing, adjusted per-class designation fees, and a modified opposition fee structure. All fees remain denominated in United States dollars. The detailed fee table appears in the next section, but the headline message is that total filing costs for a multi-class application designating Zimbabwe have increased under the ARIPO fees 2026 schedule.

Evidence-of-Use Clauses Introduced

Perhaps the most significant procedural innovation is the introduction of evidence-of-use provisions into the Banjul Protocol framework. The amended regulations now empower ARIPO, and designated national offices including the Zimbabwe intellectual property office, to require proof that a mark is being genuinely used in commerce in connection with the goods or services for which it is registered. This brings regional practice into closer alignment with the Trade Marks Act Zimbabwe (Chapter 26:04), which has long contained domestic use requirements and vulnerability-to-cancellation provisions.

Transitional Provisions for Pending Applications

Applications filed before 01 March 2026 that were still pending on the effective date are now governed by the 2026 Edition rules going forward. Industry observers expect that the practical effect will be felt most acutely in opposition proceedings: any opposition filed on or after 01 March 2026, even against an application lodged before that date, will be subject to the new fee structure and timeline. Applicants with pending files should treat the transition as immediate and adjust docketing accordingly.

Fees, ARIPO 2026 Fee Schedule and Practical Examples for Zimbabwe Designation

The revised fee schedule is set out in the Banjul Protocol on Marks (2026 Edition). The table below summarises the principal fee items relevant to a Zimbabwe designation. All amounts are in United States dollars (USD) as prescribed by ARIPO.

Worked Example A, New Single-Class Application Designating Zimbabwe

A brand owner filing a single-class trademark application through its national office and designating Zimbabwe will incur the transmittal fee, the base application fee, a single designation fee for Zimbabwe, and any applicable class fee. Under the Banjul Protocol amendments, each of these line items has been adjusted upward from the pre-2026 schedule. Applicants should request the exact current amounts directly from ARIPO or their local agent, referencing the 2026 Edition fee schedule, to ensure accurate budgeting.

Worked Example B, Filing an Opposition

An opponent challenging a published application that designates Zimbabwe must pay the opposition fee set out in the 2026 schedule. The restructured fee now reflects the administrative cost of processing the opposition at both the ARIPO Office and the designated national office. The likely practical effect is that frivolous oppositions will decrease as the cost barrier rises, while legitimate brand-protection actions remain proportionate.

Payment is accepted in USD. Invoicing follows ARIPO’s standard procedure: the applicant’s local office issues payment instructions upon receipt of the filing, and failure to pay within the prescribed period may result in the application being deemed withdrawn.

Timelines, Filing, Publication, Opposition and Registration

One of the most operationally important aspects of the Banjul Protocol amendments is the tightening of procedural timelines. The comparison table below maps the key stages from filing to registration, contrasting the position before and after 01 March 2026.

Key Legislative Dates

The compressed timelines mean that agents handling Zimbabwe designations should update their docketing systems immediately. Missing a shortened response window could result in an application being treated as abandoned.

Evidence of Use, Standards, Acceptable Proof and Drafting Tips

The introduction of evidence-of-use requirements is the most structurally significant element of the Banjul Protocol amendments for Zimbabwe-designated marks. Brand owners must now be prepared to demonstrate genuine use, or a bona fide intention to use, the mark in commerce.

What Counts as Evidence

The Trade Marks Act Zimbabwe (Chapter 26:04) defines “use” broadly to include use in relation to goods or services in the course of trade. Drawing on both the amended Banjul Protocol implementing regulations and domestic law, the following categories of evidence are generally accepted:

• Sales invoices and purchase orders. Dated commercial documents showing transactions involving goods or services bearing the mark in Zimbabwe or destined for Zimbabwe.
• Shipping and customs documentation. Bills of lading, import permits and customs declarations demonstrating physical entry of branded goods into Zimbabwe.
• Advertising and marketing materials. Print advertisements, digital campaign records, social-media screenshots and promotional brochures distributed in or directed at the Zimbabwe market.
• Product packaging and labelling. Photographs of the mark as applied to goods, labels or packaging available in Zimbabwe retail channels.
• Distribution and licensing agreements. Contracts with local distributors, retailers or licensees confirming that the mark is being used with the proprietor’s authority in Zimbabwe.
• Sworn affidavit or statutory declaration. A deponent’s statement attesting to the nature, duration and extent of use, supported by documentary exhibits.

Sample Affidavit Template, Key Elements to Include

When preparing an affidavit in support of use, counsel should ensure it addresses the following points:

• Identity of the deponent and their relationship to the mark owner (employee, director, licensee).
• Description of the mark as registered or applied for, including registration or application number.
• Goods or services in respect of which the mark has been used, referenced by class.
• Territory of use, confirm use specifically within Zimbabwe (or export to Zimbabwe).
• Period of use, state the commencement date and confirm that use has been continuous or specify any gaps.
• Documentary exhibits, list and annex supporting documents (invoices, photos, advertisements) with exhibit marks.

Tips for Cross-Border Proofs

Many brand owners designating Zimbabwe via ARIPO are headquartered outside the country. In such cases, evidence of exported goods bearing the mark, advertising directed at Zimbabwe consumers via digital channels, and distribution agreements with Zimbabwe-based partners will all be relevant. The Trade Marks Act Zimbabwe does not require that manufacture occur locally, importation and sale of branded goods constitutes use. However, purely token or sporadic transactions may not satisfy the threshold. Industry observers expect ARIPO and designated offices to apply a “genuine and continuous commercial use” standard consistent with international norms.

Oppositions, Strategy, Costs and Best Practice for Zimbabwe-Designated Marks

The revised opposition framework under the Banjul Protocol amendments strengthens both the procedural rigour and cost discipline of the opposition process.

Filing an Opposition at ARIPO

An opponent must file a notice of opposition within the prescribed opposition period following publication in the ARIPO Journal. The notice must be accompanied by the opposition fee (see fee table above) and supported by a statement of grounds and any evidence relied upon. For marks designating Zimbabwe, opponents should consider citing conflict with prior rights under both the Banjul Protocol and the Trade Marks Act Zimbabwe.

Responding to an Opposition

Applicants served with a notice of opposition must file a counter-statement within the period specified in the implementing regulations. Failure to respond may result in the application being refused for the opposing designations. Early engagement with the opponent to explore settlement or coexistence is strongly recommended.

Settlement and Extension Options

The amended regulations continue to permit parties to request extensions of time by consent where settlement negotiations are ongoing. Early indications suggest that ARIPO will grant reasonable extensions provided both parties confirm active discussions. A formal coexistence agreement, if reached, can be filed with ARIPO and the Zimbabwe intellectual property office to resolve the proceedings.

ARIPO vs ZIPO: Which Filing Route for Zimbabwe in 2026?

Since the Banjul Protocol amendments took effect, the relative merits of the ARIPO regional route versus a direct national filing at the Companies and Intellectual Property Office of Zimbabwe (ZIPO) have shifted. The comparison table below helps brand owners and agents select the appropriate route, or decide whether parallel filing is warranted.

For large portfolios spanning several ARIPO contracting states, the regional route remains more efficient despite the fee increases. For businesses focused exclusively on Zimbabwe, a direct national filing at ZIPO may be more cost-effective and offers the certainty of a nationally examined registration. Parallel filing, designating Zimbabwe through ARIPO and filing nationally, is advisable for high-value marks in sectors where opposition risk is elevated.

Practical Remediation Checklist, What to Do Now (30/60/90-Day Plan)

The Banjul Protocol amendments are already in force. Brand owners and their intellectual property advisers should work through the following checklist without delay:

Within 30 Days

• Audit pending ARIPO filings. Identify every application that designates Zimbabwe and confirm which procedural stage it has reached.
• Update docketing. Reset all deadline calculations to reflect compressed response windows under the 2026 implementing regulations.
• Budget review. Recalculate expected costs for pending and upcoming filings using the revised ARIPO fees 2026 schedule.

Within 60 Days

• Prepare evidence-of-use packages. For each Zimbabwe-designated mark, assemble invoices, shipping records, advertising materials and distribution agreements into a ready-to-file exhibit bundle.
• Draft affidavits. Prepare template statutory declarations addressing the six key elements set out in the evidence-of-use section above.
• Notify local agents and partners. Circulate a brief to Zimbabwe-based agents confirming the changes and requesting updated fee schedules and procedural guidance from the Zimbabwe intellectual property office.

Within 90 Days

• Evaluate ARIPO vs ZIPO strategy. For each core mark, decide whether parallel national filing at ZIPO is advisable in light of the new cost and compliance landscape.
• File any outstanding renewals. Ensure all renewals due in 2026 are filed at the new fee rates before grace-period surcharges accrue.
• Schedule a portfolio review. Engage qualified intellectual property counsel in Zimbabwe to conduct a full compliance audit and advise on any vulnerable registrations.

Conclusion

The Banjul Protocol amendments effective 01 March 2026 are not merely administrative updates, they reshape the cost, timing and evidentiary landscape for every trademark registration that designates Zimbabwe through ARIPO. Brand owners who delay compliance risk escalating fees, missed deadlines under compressed procedural windows, and potential vulnerability to cancellation under the new evidence-of-use framework. The 30/60/90-day checklist above provides a clear roadmap: audit portfolios now, prepare evidence packages promptly, and engage experienced Zimbabwe-based intellectual property counsel to navigate the transition with confidence.

Sources

1. ARIPO, Notice: Amendments to the Banjul Protocol On Marks
2. ARIPO, Banjul Protocol on Marks (2026 Edition)
3. WIPO, PCT Applicant’s Guide: Zimbabwe
4. WIPO Lex, Trade Marks Act (Zimbabwe)
5. ZIMLII, Trade Marks Act (Chapter 26:04)
6. WIPO Country Profile, Zimbabwe