Authored By: Chukwudebelu Kosiso Esther
Abstract
This article explores the concept of geographical indication (GI) within the framework of intellectual property (IP) law, focusing on its application to Nigeria’s declining textile industry. It discusses the potential of GIs to protect, promote, and commercialize indigenous Nigerian textiles such as Akwete, Adire, and Aso Oke on a global scale. The piece critically examines the current legal regime governing GIs at national and international levels, highlights gaps in Nigerian legislation, and proposes legal and institutional reforms. Ultimately, it argues that robust GI protection can foster cultural preservation, economic revitalization, and regional identity through a reinvigorated textile sector.
Introduction
Why is “Champagne” produced in France, but not in Nigeria? Why does “Ijebu Garri” have more weight than just “Garri”? These questions underscore the significance of geographical indications, unique signs that link products to specific regions, reflecting their quality, culture, and origin. In Nigeria, the textile industry has historically been a pillar of economic and cultural expression, producing traditional fabrics like Akwete, Adire, and Aso Ok[1]e.
However, the industry’s decline, coupled with inadequate legal protection for local textile identities, has diminished its global competitiveness. This article investigates the potential of geographical indications to revitalize Nigeria’s textile industry. It provides an overview of GI law, evaluates its current enforcement mechanisms, discusses its benefits, and proposes recommendations for stronger protection frameworks.
Geographical Indication: Meaning and Origins
A geographical indication is a form of intellectual property that identifies a product as originating from a particular place, where its quality, reputation, or characteristics are essentially linked to its geographic origin[2]. Internationally, GIs emerged from treaties such as the Paris Convention (1883) and the TRIPS Agreement (1994), gaining traction across sectors like agriculture, textiles, food, and fashion[3].
The Nigerian Textile Industry
Dating back to pre-colonial times, Nigerian textiles were once regionally dominant and culturally significant. Textiles such as Aso Oke (Yoruba), Akwete (Igbo), and Adire (Southwest Nigeria) were handcrafted symbols of identity and social status. Despite a vibrant history, the industry’s decline has been attributed to policy inconsistency, weak infrastructure, and influx of cheap imports.
The potential of GIs to rebrand these textiles as globally competitive cultural exports remains largely untapped due to the absence of a strong legal framework in Nigeria[4].
Legal Foundations and Requirements for GI Registration
To qualify as a geographical indication, a product must establish a “clear and indisputable” connection between its quality or reputation and its geographic origin. This connection can be either:
- Direct: e.g., “Ijebu Garri”
- Indirect: e.g., a symbolic label or pattern representing a location[5]
The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and TRIPS Agreement stipulate that GIs must be distinguishable, protectable, and not misleading. In Nigeria, however, the only legislative mention of GIs appears in the outdated Trademarks Act, which fails to provide specific guidelines for registration, enforcement, or commercial use[6].
Under TRIPS Article 22, members must ensure legal means to prevent misuse of GIs[7]. Yet, in Nigeria, enforcement is lax and no sui generis legislation exists to streamline registration, recognition, or promotion of local GIs[8].
GIs in the Context of Nigerian Textiles
Nigeria’s indigenous textiles qualify as ideal candidates for GI protection. For example:
- Aso Oke is woven by the Yoruba in Southwestern Nigeria and symbolizes class, heritage, and craftsmanship.
- Akwete is crafted by Igbo women of Abia State and bears distinctive patterns representing royalty or social roles.
- Adire, a tie-dye fabric, originates from Abeokuta and is passed through generations of Yoruba women[9].
Without legal GI protection, these textiles are vulnerable to appropriation and counterfeiting, diluting their authenticity and economic potential. GIs can mitigate these risks by:
- Certifying regional origin
- Enhancing cultural value
- Providing legal recourse against misuse
- Boosting global marketability[10]
The Lisbon Agreement (1958) and its 2015 Geneva Act broadened the scope of GI protections beyond wine and spirits, encouraging recognition of traditional textiles. However, Nigeria has neither ratified this agreement nor implemented robust GI systems domestically[11].
Economic, Cultural, and Social Justifications for GI Protection
GIs are more than legal mechanisms, they are engines of economic growth, cultural identity, and social cohesion. The benefits include:
- Economic Value: According to the European Commission, GI-protected goods generated over €74 billion in sales in 2017. Nigeria’s textile sector, if GI-certified, could access premium markets, increase export value, and create thousands of jobs[12].
- Cultural Heritage: Fabrics like Isi Agu, Ukara, and Adire are cultural artefacts tied to rituals, ceremonies, and status. GI protection preserves this heritage while promoting indigenous knowledge systems[13].
- Market Differentiation: GIs enable consumers—local or international—to identify authentic products based on origin, reducing search costs and fostering brand loyalty[14].
- Consumer Protection: GI marks act as guarantees of authenticity and quality, discouraging imitation and mislabeling[15].
GIs also inspire foreign investment, as investors are more willing to fund locally recognized and legally protected heritage products.
Implications of GI Protection for Nigeria
Legal protection of GIs in textiles can lead to:
- Revitalization of traditional industries
- Increased GDP contribution from cultural exports
- Rural economic development through community-based production
- Women empowerment, as many textile artisans in Nigeria are female[16]
Institutional Challenges
Nigeria faces significant obstacles:
- No National GI Register: Unlike WIPO’s Lisbon Express database, Nigeria lacks a centralized registry.
- Weak Enforcement: No designated body monitors or sanctions GI violations.
- Public Ignorance: Many producers are unaware of GI benefits, missing registration and branding opportunities.
- Legal Gaps: Nigeria has not domesticated the TRIPS Agreement under Section 12 of the 1999 Constitution, making enforcement impossible.
- Trademark Conflict: GI applications may clash with previously registered trademarks, complicating recognition.[17]
Conclusion
The Nigerian textile industry, rooted in centuries of culture and craftsmanship, is at a critical crossroads. Geographical indications present a viable pathway to reposition local textiles in global markets while preserving their heritage. Although Nigeria’s current legal framework is underdeveloped, international models like the TRIPS Agreement and Lisbon System offer templates for reform. Legal protection of GIs can catalyze cultural preservation, consumer trust, and economic growth—provided Nigeria undertakes the necessary legislative and institutional restructuring.
REFERENCE(S):
- Adebayo O, ‘Nigeria: The Rationale for Protecting Geographical Indications in Nigeria’ (Mondaq.com, 17 November 2020) https://www.mondaq.com/nigeria/trademark/1006534/the-rationale-for-protecting-geographical-indications-in-nigeria accessed 29 July 2025
- Adamu P and Justice GJ, ‘Geographical Indications in Intellectual Property Law in Nigeria: A Tool for the Protection of Traditional Knowledge and Agricultural Produce’ (SSRN, 22 July 2022) https://ssrn.com/abstract=3954951 accessed 30 July 2025
- Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), 15 April 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1C, 1869 UNTS 299, 33 ILM 1197 (1994)
- Chomwan Weeraworawit, ‘Geographical Indications and the Textile Industry in Developing Countries: The Case for Multilateral Protection’ (Fordham IP Institute, 26 April 2019) https://fordhamipinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Chomwan_Fordham-2019_GIs-and-multilateral-protection_reduced-size.pdf accessed 29 July 2025
- Gwom S, ‘Protection of Geographical Indications in Nigeria: A Legal Policy Deficit’ (WTO.org, 2017) https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/colloquium_papers_e/2017/chapter_7_2017_e.pdf accessed 30 July 2025
- Oke EK, ‘Rethinking Nigerian Geographical Indications Law’ (2022) 25(3) Journal of World Intellectual Property https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jwip.12248 accessed 29 July 2025
- Oyewunmi AO, Nigerian Law of Intellectual Property (University of Lagos Press and Bookshop Ltd 2019)
- Themes U, ‘What Is Aso Oke?’ (Empire Textiles Blog) https://www.empiretextiles.com/blog/portfolio/what-is-aso-oke/ accessed 29 July 2025
- Uwanna C, ‘Geographical Indications in Nigeria: Recommendations and Realities’ (CLRNN.net, 23 July 2021) https://www.clrnn.net/2021/07/23/geographical-indications-in-nigeria-realities-and-recommendations/ accessed 30 July 2025
[1] Adejoke O. Oyewunmi, Nigerian Law of Intellectual Property (University of Lagos Press and Bookshop Ltd 2019) 5.
[2] ibid.
[3] Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Apr. 15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1C, 1869 U.N.T.S. 299, 33 I.L.M. 1197 (1994) [hereinafter TRIPS Agreement].
[4]Solomon Gwom, ‘Protection of Geographical Indications in Nigeria: A Legal Policy Deficit.’ (Wto.org, 2017) <https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/colloquium_papers_e/2017/chapter_7_2017_e.pdf> accessed 30 July 2025.
[5] Chomwam Weeraworawit, ‘Geographical Indications and the Textile Industry in Developing Countries: The Case for Multilateral Protection’ (Fordhamipinstitute.com, 26 April 2019) <https://fordhamipinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Chomwan_Fordham-2019_GIs-and-multilateral-protection_reduced-size.pdf> accessed 29 July 2025.
[6] ibid.
[7] Article 22 of the TRIPs Agreement
[8] Oreoluwa Adebayo, ‘Nigeria: The Rationale For Protecting Geographical Indications In Nigeria’ (Mondaq,com, 17 November 2020) <https://www.mondaq.com/nigeria/trademark/1006534/the-rationale-for-protecting-geographical-indications-in-nigeria> accessed 29 July 2025.
[9] Pamela Adamu and Justice Gilbert Junior, ‘Geographical Indications in Intellectual Property Law in Nigeria: A Tool for The Protection of Traditional Knowledge and Agricultural Produce’ (Ssrn.com, 22 July 2022) <https://ssrn.com/abstract=3954951> accessed 30 July, 2025.
[10] ibid.
[11] Emmanuel Kolawole Oke, ‘Rethinking Nigerian Geographical Indications Law’ (2022) 25(3) J. World Intellect. Prop. <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jwip.12248> accessed 29 July 2025
[12] Chinasa Uwanna, ‘Geographical Indications in Nigeria: Recommendations and Realities’ (Clrnn.net, 23 July 2021) <https://www.clrnn.net/2021/07/23/geographical-indications-in-nigeria-realities-and-recommendations/> accessed 30 July 2025.
[13] ibid.
[14] ibid.
[15] Themes U, ‘What Is Aso Oke?’ (Empire Textiles Blog) <https://www.empiretextiles.com/blog/portfolio/what-is-aso-oke/> accessed 29 July 2025
[16] Oreoluwa Adebayo, ‘Nigeria: The Rationale For Protecting Geographical Indications In Nigeria’ (Mondaq,com, 17 November 2020) <https://www.mondaq.com/nigeria/trademark/1006534/the-rationale-for-protecting-geographical-indications-in-nigeria> accessed 29 July 2025.
[17]Chinasa Uwanna, ‘Geographical Indications in Nigeria: Recommendations and Realities’ (Clrnn.net, 23 July 2021) <https://www.clrnn.net/2021/07/23/geographical-indications-in-nigeria-realities-and-recommendations/> accessed 29 July 2025.
