The African Intellectual Property Organization (OAPI) has rejected an opposition filed by Agence France-Presse (AFP) against Cameroonian journalist Alain Gueo Foka’s application to register the “AFO + Logo” trademark. In Decision No. 2059, issued on May 19, 2026, OAPI found that the two marks could coexist without creating a likelihood of confusion.

The decision concerns Application No. 32024002148, filed on June 19, 2024, in Classes 35, 38 and 41. These classes cover advertising, business management, telecommunications, education, entertainment and cultural activities, among other services.

The application was published in the Official Bulletin of Industrial Property on September 27, 2024. AFP filed its opposition on December 9, citing its earlier “AFP + Logo” trademark, No. 122013, filed on December 10, 2020, in Classes 9, 16, 35, 38 and 41.

AFP was represented by Alphinoor & Co., although the available documents did not name the individual lawyers handling the case. Alain Foka was represented by Christian Dudieu Djomga of Dudieu Avocats and Nicole Mbella Gom.

AFP Cited Similarities Between the Services and Signs

AFP argued that the two trademarks covered identical or similar services in communications, telecommunications, advertising, education, training, business management and entertainment. It also argued that the AFP and AFO signs were visually, phonetically and conceptually similar, creating a risk that consumers could confuse them.

The agency cited the shared letters “A” and “F,” the use of stylized capital letters and similarities in the signs’ graphic structure. It also said the director general of France’s National Institute of Industrial Property had rejected an application to register “AFO + Logo” in proceedings involving the same parties. The documents reviewed did not include the reference number, content or scope of the French decision.

Djomga and Gom argued that the AFO mark made legitimate, good-faith use of Alain Foka’s initials and surname, without any intention of creating an association with AFP. They described Foka as a prominent figure in the audiovisual industry across OAPI member states.

The lawyers added that “AFO + Logo” combines stylized letters with a distinct figurative element and shares only its first two letters with AFP. Phonetically and conceptually, they said, AFO refers to Alain Foka and his media activities, while AFP refers to an international news agency. They argued that these different associations further reduced the likelihood that an average consumer would link the two signs.

They also challenged the admissibility of the opposition, arguing that the marks mentioned in their submissions had already been registered and that OAPI’s director general therefore lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. OAPI rejected that argument.

OAPI Rules Out a Likelihood of Confusion

OAPI found that AFP refers conceptually to Agence France-Presse, while AFO identifies a digital platform specializing in African news and documentation. It also found that consumers of the services concerned would exercise “a high degree of attention.”

OAPI concluded that the shared letters “A” and “F” were insufficient to create a likelihood of confusion and that the two marks could coexist across its member states.

The decision distinguishes between the procedural admissibility of the opposition and its examination on the merits. Article 1 finds the opposition procedurally admissible, while Article 2 rejects it on the merits. OAPI therefore did not find that it lacked jurisdiction or dismiss the opposition because of a procedural defect. It compared the services and signs before ruling out a likelihood of confusion.

The decision applies only to the “AFO + Logo” mark covered by Application No. 32024002148. Its conclusion cannot automatically be extended to other marks mentioned by Alain Foka’s lawyers, including “AFO Media,” which may be subject to separate proceedings.

A statement from Dudieu Avocats also describes Alain Foka as a former AFP employee. That claim does not appear in OAPI’s decision and is not supported by any of the documents provided. Publicly available information primarily documents his long career at Radio France Internationale, which he left in 2023. A previous employment relationship with AFP therefore cannot be considered established on the basis of the statement alone.

Commercial Stakes, but an Appeal Remains Possible

The decision also has commercial implications for AFO. The classes involved cover several potential revenue streams for a digital media company, including advertising, telecommunications, content, education, entertainment and cultural activities.

For now, the rejection of AFP’s opposition reduces the risk that AFO will be required to change its branding across OAPI member states. It does not, however, definitively end the dispute or establish that the registration process has been completed.

Article 3 allows AFP to appeal to OAPI’s Higher Appeals Commission within 60 days of being notified of the decision. Because the notification date is not included in the documents reviewed, it is unclear whether the deadline has expired or whether AFP has appealed.

Contacted for comment, Djomga and Gom declined to discuss the case further while the decision remained subject to appeal. AFP did not provide its position on the ruling or indicate whether it planned to appeal.

Source: Sbbc