Introduction
Artificial intelligence is now shaping the way brands are conceived, built and deployed. What would once take a team of strategists weeks can now be produced in seconds by an algorithm. Names, logos, slogans and even entire brand identities are increasingly the work of generative AI systems. This has raised a profound legal question that Nigeria has not yet confronted directly. If a brand is created by a machine rather than a human mind, who owns it?
The question is neither speculative nor futuristic. Nigerian companies, creative agencies and start ups are already relying on AI tools to generate material they intend to adopt as enforceable trademarks. The legal uncertainty is real. Behind the sleek outputs of these systems are unresolved questions about authorship, ownership, liability and commercial control. As more businesses integrate AI into their branding processes, these issues will move from interesting debates to bitterly contested disputes.
Nigeria’s Trademark Regime and the Human Centric Model
Nigeria’s trademark law was built around a simple assumption, brands originate from human creativity. The Trade Marks Act, the Registry’s examination practice and the case law on passing off all presuppose a creator who is either a natural person or a legal entity acting through individuals. No part of the law contemplates a machine as the source of a brand.
This human centric approach is now strained. AI tools can generate names and visuals entirely on their own, without any meaningful human intervention. If the machine imagines the brand, what then is the legal foundation of the user’s claim of ownership? Nigerian law offers no explicit answer.
Authorship, Ownership and the Importance of Control
Fortunately, trademark law does not tie ownership to originality in the same way that copyright law does. Instead, ownership rests primarily on control and use in the course of business. This gives us the first workable principle in the AI context. The business that selects, adopts and controls the AI generated mark can, in most cases, claim ownership. What matters is not who conceived the idea but who exercises commercial dominion over the mark.
Even so, this is not a blanket solution. If the AI generated output is too similar to a prior registered mark or derives from training data that incorporates third party material, ownership becomes unstable. A time bomb may be hidden in the brand from the very moment of creation.
Contracts: Where Rights Are Won or Lost
In practice, the real battleground will be contract law. Every major AI platform operates through licence agreements that govern the ownership of generated content. Some grant full commercial rights to users. Others take the opposite approach and reserve ownership or impose restrictions.
For Nigerian businesses, the most important questions are:
- Does the AI provider assign all rights in the outputs?
- Does the provider guarantee that the outputs are free from infringement?
- Is the training dataset original, licensed or uncertain?
- Does the provider disclaim liability for resulting disputes?
A company that chooses a brand created by AI without clarity on these issues is taking a commercial risk that may surface years later, after goodwill has accumulated around the mark. At that point, the legal consequences could be severe: opposition proceedings, cancellation actions or injunctions that force a total rebrand.
Are AI Generated Marks Registrable in Nigeria
The Trade Marks Registry does not investigate the creative origin of a mark. It evaluates distinctiveness, conflict with existing marks and class compliance. On that basis alone, AI generated marks are registrable. The challenge, however, lies in the nature of AI outputs.
AI systems often produce expressions that feel familiar because they are shaped by the patterns of their training data. This increases the risk of inadvertent similarity with existing trademarks. Without a robust clearance search, a business may register a mark that is vulnerable to challenge later.
Distinctiveness is another concern. Generative AI tools sometimes favour descriptive or common terms, particularly where the user gives generic prompts. Nigerian law requires trademarks to function as indicators of origin. A machine produced name that lacks depth or uniqueness may fail this test.
Conflicts with AI Developers and Third Parties
Another unresolved issue is the possibility of competing claims from the developers of the AI system or the owners of the datasets used to train the model. Some AI providers expressly reserve certain rights in their output. Others disclaim all responsibility for the originality of the results.
For Nigerian companies that trade across Africa or globally, this can trigger disputes that extend beyond our borders. Different jurisdictions treat AI generated works differently. The absence of harmonisation means a brand that is recognised in Nigeria may face obstacles elsewhere.
The International Position and Its Influence on Nigeria
No jurisdiction has recognised AI as a legal author. All major economies have affirmed that intellectual property rights vest in humans or in corporations acting through humans. This international consensus is an important guide for Nigerian policymakers and courts.
We can expect Nigerian law to follow a similar path. Ownership will likely be anchored in the human or corporate user who adopts and controls the AI generated output. The machine will remain a tool, not a creator.
Practical Guidance for Nigerian Businesses
Given the uncertainties, businesses must take deliberate steps to protect themselves.
- Use AI platforms with clear and favourable intellectual property terms.
- Ensure there is a written assignment or irrevocable licence for all outputs.
- Run comprehensive trademark searches before adoption.
- Document human involvement in selecting and refining the brand.
- Maintain strong evidence of use and control.
- Seek legal review before filing any application based on AI generated material.
Conclusion
AI generated branding is an extraordinary development. It expands creative possibilities but raises equally significant legal questions. For Nigeria, this is an opportunity to refine our trademark jurisprudence and prepare our commercial ecosystem for a future where machines assist in shaping brand identities.
The principle that will guide us is simple. Ownership follows control. Rights belong to the entity that exercises judgment, adopts the mark and uses it in the marketplace. Provided businesses take care to understand the legal terrain and negotiate the right contractual protections, AI can become a powerful ally rather than a source of uncertainty.
