Authored By: Hope Michelle Chilonga
University of Zambia
ABSTRACT
The Patents and Companies Registration Agency (PACRA) was established by the Zambian Government in 2010. This agency acts as a familiar household name among Zambian citizens without individuals fully grasping its comprehensive regulatory mandate. PACRA serves as the official registry where businesses are able to protect their trademark, among other things, through intellectual property law.
With the enhancement of the digital sphere in the modern era, trademark owners face difficulties in identifying and pursuing online infringers due to the anonymity and borderless nature of the internet.[1] This leads to the question of how institutions charged with trademark protection will be able to keep up with their mandate in the ever-growing technological space. This study employs a doctrinal and analytical approach, critically evaluating statutory frameworks and judicial case law to assess how PACRA is likely to ensure protection of business trademarks in the digital era.
INTRODUCTION
This article is an analysis of the agency (PACRA), its legitimacy in ensuring the protection of company trademarks, as well as the challenges that this institution is likely to incur as it encounters the evolving digital sphere of the modern age. This article will also analyze key legal principles that outline the reach and limitations of PACRA and how these are to be applied in cases dealing with the evolution of Artificial Intelligence and its effect on business trademarks. Additionally, critical legal commentary will be provided on the findings of this analysis.
Essentially, this article aims to explore the legal scenarios that are to be faced by the Patents and Companies Registration Agency as it begins to adapt to a broader and more complex society that is seen to be reconstructing the idea of who is able to create a trademark and how it is to be protected by law in the digital era.
The article will begin with a look at the main operations of PACRA and the role that it plays in trademark protection. Following this will be a legal analysis of the relevant statutes, judicial decisions, and scholarly opinions that relate to the agency as well as how the agency has responded to dealing with the expansion and development of technology and, to that effect, what measures it has put in place to manage this issue, if any at all. Additionally, this article will establish a critical analysis of the findings, supported by relevant law.
BACKGROUND
The Patents and Companies Registration Agency was established by the Zambian government through the Patents and Companies Registration Agency Act No.15 of 2010.[2] This statute has since been repealed and replaced by the Patents and Companies Registration Agency Act No.4 of 2020. The function of the agency, among other things, is the administration of the Zambian Trade Marks Act, 2023, which provides for the registration and protection of trademarks. The agency also receives and investigates any complaints of alleged or suspected breach of the Act and, subject to the directives of the Director of Public Prosecutions, prosecute offences under Trade Mark Act.[3]
According to the Trade Marks Act, a trademark means a mark that distinguishes a good or service of one person from an identical or similar good or service of another person or a mark that distinguishes a good or service certified by a proprietor from an identical or similar good or service that has not been certified by that proprietor.[4]
The Patents and Companies Agency uses the Trade Marks Act to settle disputes involving trademark ownership in its own right without much judicial interference. For example, in the case of Tangy Energy Drinks Limited v Saglikli Gida Urunleri San.Tic.A.S (2025), which was decided by the registrar of trademarks at PACRA, involved a trademark opposition where the applicants (Tangy Energy Drinks Limited) sought to register their trademark ‘Glory and Label’, which was opposed by Turkish company Saglikli Gida.
The opposition in this case was dismissed on the grounds that there was minimal evidence to prove that the applicant filed its trademark in bad faith as well as the fact that the opponent’s trademark was not registered in Zambia and there was no evidence of the opponent’s mark in the market.[5] This case demonstrates PACRAs ability to independently preside over administrative cases involving trademark opposition and protection, among other things.
With that being said, there have been no recorded cases in recent times where the Patents and Companies Registration Agency have delt with obstacles involving a dispute that arises as a result of incorporation of artificial intelligence technology in the creation of a trademark. However, PACRA is currently reviewing IP laws to address challenges related to AI-driven content.[6]
LEGAL ANALYSIS
The main question that arises is how PACRA is going to deal with disputes that arise with trademarks that are constructed through Artificial Intelligence technology. When it comes down to liability and accountability of AI-generated trademarks, what legal parameters are to be used in settling such disputes? Are current laws enough to cater to the needs of the growing digital landscape? These questions will be used to guide this analysis.
Zambia currently has no specific trademark laws enacted exclusively to address AI-driven content, however, PACRA has embarked on a review of the Copyright and Performance Rights Act to address challenges arising from technological advancements. PACRA Deputy Registrar for Intellectual Property, Chewe Chilufya, said the revision seeks to respond to the rise of digital platforms, AI-driven content, and e-commerce, which have introduced new forms of intellectual property creation and infringement. Chilufya added that the agency was in the process of incorporating international treaties into Zambia’s domestic legislation, particularly in the areas of copyright and trademarks.[7]
Should this plan be put into effect, it would be a significant milestone in the development of Zambian law as it begins to adapt to modern-day societal expectations as well as relieve some of the uncertainty surrounding AI-generated content and trademarks that are seen to be growing in number. Businesses use AI tools to generate logos, brand names, and distinct visual elements. When these elements are submitted for registration as trademarks, legal disputes inevitably follow.
Should a dispute involving AI-generated content arise, it is highly likely that PACRA would rely on foreign cases and statutes that have already been established while it is still in the transition period of adjusting domestic laws to cater to such disputes. One of the cases that could be used is the case of Getty Images (US) Inc & ors v Stability AI Limited (2025), which is the first UK judgement addressing alleged intellectual property infringements arising from the use of generative artificial intelligence. In this case, Getty Images claimed that AI-generated image outputs unlawfully reproduced its watermarks for “Getty Images” and “iStock”, which were protected via trademarks.[8]
The court in this case commented that it was impossible to know how many (or even on what scale) watermarks have been generated in real life that would fall into a similar category. The decision shows that existing IP law can address AI disputes, but this depends on the evidence.[9] This could reasonably be used as an alternative by the Patents and Companies Registration Agency considering that it has the intention to begin to adopt international treaties into domestic legislation.
By domesticating treaties such as the Madrid System, which is created under the Madrid Agreement (1891) and the Madrid Protocol (1989), a centralized filing mechanism is provided, which is especially significant in the current digital economy, where brands often extend beyond national borders. It also enhances legal certainty by offering a standardized procedure for trademark management across member countries. This adaptability makes it particularly advantageous for businesses navigating the fast-evolving global market.[10]
Nevertheless, there is an evident need to further research and establish concrete laws that particularly target AI-generated trademark content rather than just scratching the surface. There is still a clear adherence to laws that are not comprehensive enough to cover the growing issues of digital trademarks and the development of AI-generated content. Therefore, there is a need to make deliberate efforts to address these concerns through the development of progressive written law.
CASE LAW DISCUSSION
There have been a number of cases in recent years that have covered ground on dealing with trademark disputes arising from AI-generated content. Though Zambia is yet to outline the regulations to follow should such disputes arise, reference can be made from the decisions of foreign jurisdictions that have been able to encounter such disputes and resolve them consequently.
Among these cases is that of Advance Local Media LLC and others v Cohere Inc. (2025), which centers on copyright and trademark infringement. The facts of the case were that the defendant, Cohere, a Canadian company in the business of developing, operating, and licensing artificial intelligence models, was sued by major publishers who claimed that Cohere used their copyright articles to train its models, which created a problem of production of hallucinated answers that infringed on the copyrights and trademarks of the publishers as the articles were falsely attributed to their publication. The court ruling in this case was the denial of Cohere’s partial motion to dismiss the case. The judge ruled that misattributed hallucinated articles could cause consumer confusion, ruling that AI developers cannot particularly shield themselves from liability by claiming that the hallucinations were technical accidents.[11]
This case is significant because it holds developers accountable for inaccurate results of AI models that are used in the global market and prevents misuse of business trademarks by making sure AI-generated content adheres to procedures and limitations set out in the law. If adopted, PACRA can use this case to rule out business entities that would try to escape liability by labeling trademark infringements as technical issues.
The second case is that of OpenAI, Inc. v Open Artificial Intelligence, Inc. and another, (2024), which involved a trademark infringement dispute where OpenAI requested an injunction against Open Artificial Intelligence, Inc. and its founder, Guy Ravine.[12] The facts of the case were that Ravine bought the now-defunct “open.ai” website in March 2015, months before OpenAI was founded. OpenAI sued Ravine and Open Artificial Intelligence in 2023, arguing that they applied to register an “OpenAI” trademark the day after OpenAI announced its founding to “sow consumer confusion.” The judge granted the injunction in this case, ruling that Ravine and Open Artificial Intelligence violated OpenAI’s trademark right. The judge also stated that Ravine’s “Open AI” trademark was invalid because he misled the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office about his use of the name in commerce.[13]
This case is significant in demonstrating how AI based companies can protect their brand identities from compromise and impersonations. PACRA can also adopt the principles used in this case when determining the outcome of a similar issue that would arise in the country.
CRITICAL ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
From this analysis, there are three key findings that arise. Firstly, there is a need for deliberate efforts by law making bodies to create laws that go to the heart of dispute resolution where more modern advancements and AI models are concerned. The primary objective of trademark law is to safeguard the privileges of people who make and sell goods with unique trademarks from being encroached on by individuals who misrepresent their objectives and then use fraudulent trademarks.[14] Therefore, in order to ensure trademark protection in the expanding digital market, deliberate, targeted laws are needed to guide procedure and limit the capabilities of businesses that intend to fraudulently use the trademarks of other businesses.
The second finding is that in order to ensure that Zambian law is able to keep up with the growing needs of the digital business community, the Patents and Companies Registration Agency can recommend that Parliament amend the Trade Marks Act to include provisions targeted at preventing trademark infringement as a result of faulty AI-generated content.
Lastly, there should be domestication of international treaties such as the Paris Convention and the Madrid System in order to reduce complexities associated with multiple national applications through standardized procedure for trademark management across member countries.[15] The recent Trade Mark Act is said to have domesticated the Madrid Protocol, enabling international registrations designating Zambia and, in principle, integrating the country more fully into the global trade mark system.[16] This is important because as the digital marketplace begins to expand with more businesses emerging, the chances of trademark duplication grow higher. Therefore, agencies such as PACRA adopting international treaties eases such burdens.
CONCLUSION
This article analyzed the functions, capabilities and limitations of the Patents and Companies Registration Agency in relation to the way in which it protects business trademarks in the modern digital age. Though there is yet to be any particular Zambian laws and cases that directly address how to handle trademark disputes as a result of AI-generated content, PACRA is making significant efforts such as vying for the domestication of international treaties and partial application of international case law. There is a need for deliberate effort by law making bodies in order to ensure that PACRA fulfils its mission in the protection of business trademarks.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
PRIMARY SOURCES
LEGISLATION
Patents and Companies Registration Agency Act No 15 of 2010
Patents and Companies Registration Agency Act No 4 of 2020
Trade Marks Act No. 11 of 2023
CASES
Advance Local Media LLC and others v Cohere Inc. No. 1:2025cv01305 (13 November 2025)
Getty Images (US) Inc & ors v Stability AI Limited (2025) EWHC 2863 (Ch)
OpenAI, Inc v Open Artificial Intelligence, Inc and another, No. 24-1963 (13 November 2024)
Tangy Energy Drinks Limited v Saglikli Gida Urunleri San.Tic.A.S (Trademark Opposition Application No. 439/2020, Patents and Companies Registration Agency [PACRA], Office of the Registrar of Trademarks, 4 November 2025)
SECONDARY SOURCES
JOURNAL ARTICLES
Raza A, and others, ‘Artificial Intelligence as a Creator and Inventor: Legal Challenges and Protections in Copyright, Patent, and Trademark Law’ (2023) 2(4) International Journal of Contemporary Issues in Social Science
Yadav R, ‘Evolving Landscape of International Trademark Law: A Study of Key Treaties and Their Impact’ (2025) 7(2) Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research
OTHER SOURCES
ASL LAW, ‘Protecting Your Brand: The Importance of Trademark Protection in the Digital Age’ (ASL Law) https://aslgate.com/protecting-your-brand-the-importance-of-trademark-protection-in-the-digital-age/ accessed 3 June 2026
Reuters, ‘OpenAI wins trademark lawsuit over “Open Artificial Intelligence”’ Reuters (22 July 2025) https://share.google/tffuYXzHptv5fBJDh accessed 6 June 2026
Sichula A, ‘PACRA reviews copyright law to tackle digital, AI challenges’ (Zambia Monitor, 30 August 2025) https://www.zambiamonitor.com/pacra-reviews-copyright-law-to-tackle-digital-ai-challenges-video/ accessed 5 June 2026
Steinberg S and Sharrock-Harris B,‘1st UK Judgement on generative AI and IP- Getty Images v Stability AI’ (Fox Williams, 11 November 2025)
Tusi N, and others, ‘Zambia Ushers in a New Era for Trade Marks’ (Adams & Adams, 7 January 2026) https://www.adams.africa/nontando-tusi/zambia-ushers-in-a-new-era-for-trade-marks/ accessed 6 June 2026
ZANIS, ‘Zambia Revising Intellectual Property Laws’ (Facebook, [10 May 2025]) https://www.facebook.com/share/1CFWVTrAxy/ accessed 4 June 2026
[1] ASL LAW, ‘Protecting Your Brand: The Importance of Trademark Protection in the Digital Age’ (ASL Law) https://aslgate.com/protecting-your-brand-the-importance-of-trademark-protection-in-the-digital-age/ accessed 3 June 2026.
[2] Patents and Companies Registration Agency Act No 15 of 2010, s3.
[3] Patents and Companies Registration Agency Act No 4 of 2020, s5 (1).
[4] Trade Marks Act No. 11 of 2023, s2.
[5] Tangy Energy Drinks Limited v Saglikli Gida Urunleri San.Tic.A.S (Trademark Opposition Application No. 439/2020, Patents and Companies Registration Agency [PACRA], Office of the Registrar of Trademarks, 4 November 2025).
[6] ZANIS, ‘Zambia Revising Intellectual Property Laws’ (Facebook, [10 May 2025]) https://www.facebook.com/share/1CFWVTrAxy/ accessed 4 June 2026.
[7] Augustine Sichula, ‘PACRA reviews copyright law to tackle digital, AI challenges’ (Zambia Monitor, 30 August 2025) https://www.zambiamonitor.com/pacra-reviews-copyright-law-to-tackle-digital-ai-challenges-video/ accessed 5 June 2026.
[8] Getty Images (US) Inc & ors v Stability AI Limited (2025) EWHC 2863 (Ch).
[9] Scott Steinberg and Benedict Sharrock-Harris, ‘1st UK Judgement on generative AI and IP- Getty Images v Stability AI’ (Fox Williams, 11 November 2025).
[10] Rohan Yadav, ‘Evolving Landscape of International Trademark Law: A Study of Key Treaties and Their Impact’ (2025) 7(2) Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research 728.
[11] Advance Local Media LLC and others v Cohere Inc. No. 1:2025cv01305 (13 November 2025).
[12] OpenAI, Inc v Open Artificial Intelligence, Inc and another, No. 24-1963 (13 November 2024).
[13] Reuters, ‘OpenAI wins trademark lawsuit over “Open Artificial Intelligence”’ Reuters (22 July 2025) https://share.google/tffuYXzHptv5fBJDh accessed 6 June 2026.
[14] Ahmed Raza and others, ‘Artificial Intelligence as a Creator and Inventor: Legal Challenges and Protections in Copyright, Patent, and Trademark Law’ (2023) 2(4) International Journal of Contemporary Issues in Social Science 1601.
[15] Yadav (n 10).
[16] Nontando Tusi and others, ‘Zambia Ushers in a New Era for Trade Marks’ (Adams & Adams, 7 January 2026) https://www.adams.africa/nontando-tusi/zambia-ushers-in-a-new-era-for-trade-marks/ accessed 6 June 2026.
