A Gambian fashion designer spends weeks creating a distinctive textile pattern inspired by local culture. The design is posted online, attracts attention, and before long, a similar version appears on clothing being sold elsewhere.
For many creators, the frustration does not end with seeing their work copied. It begins with a more fundamental question: What legal protection do I actually have?
In The Gambia, that question remains poorly understood.
Bakary Kolley, Supervisor of Intellectual Property at the Intellectual Property Registry under the Ministry of Justice, says the majority of applications for intellectual property protection come from foreigners rather than Gambians.
For a country with a growing community of entrepreneurs, designers, musicians, farmers, inventors, and technology innovators, the trend raises an uncomfortable question: Why are foreigners apparently more interested in protecting intellectual property in The Gambia than Gambians themselves?
Kolley believes one of the biggest explanations is simply a lack of awareness.
“Business registration is not IP registration,” he said. “Business registration gives you a legal right to exist as a business, while IP registration gives you ownership of your products, brand, design, or song.”
The distinction is important.
Registering a company does not automatically mean that its logo, trademarks, product design, or other intellectual property has received separate protection. Yet Kolley says many Gambians mistakenly believe that registering a business with the Ministry of Justice is enough to protect everything associated with it.
That misunderstanding can leave valuable ideas exposed.
A legal system many creators barely know exists
The Gambia has an Intellectual Property Registry responsible for industrial property matters, including trademarks, patents, industrial designs, and collective marks. The country is also a member of the African Regional Intellectual Property Organization, or ARIPO, and participates in regional systems for protecting intellectual property.
Yet awareness of the system remains limited.
Kolley estimates that his office receives only about 150 to 200 applications annually for intellectual property registration. Not all applications are approved. Some are rejected after examination when applicants attempt to register marks or products that conflict with existing claims.
The low number of applications becomes more striking when considered against the number of businesses and creative enterprises operating in the country.
Gambians launch businesses frequently, develop fashion brands, produce music, create artwork, manufacture products, and introduce new services. Yet comparatively few appear to take the additional step of formally protecting the intellectual property behind those ventures.
The result is a paradox: Gambians are creating intellectual property, but many are not treating it as an economic asset that needs protection.
Foreign applicants, by contrast, may already understand intellectual property as part of doing business.
For companies operating across several countries, protecting a trademark, design, or invention is often considered routine. A brand name is an asset. A logo is an asset. A patented technology is an asset. A distinctive product design can be an asset.
The difference may therefore have less to do with who creates more valuable intellectual property and more to do with who understands how to protect and commercialize it.
Fashion: creativity without protection
The fashion and textile sector illustrates the problem.
Gambian designers regularly produce clothing and textile designs influenced by traditional patterns, contemporary African fashion, and local cultural identity. But many operate without formal intellectual property strategies.
Research by Gambian intellectual property expert Muhammed Lamin Ceesay found significant gaps in IP protection among textile and fashion businesses.
For these businesses, three forms of intellectual property can be particularly important: trademarks, industrial designs, and patents.
A trademark can protect a brand identity, including a name, logo, or other distinctive sign. Industrial design protection can protect the visual appearance of a product, including certain patterns, shapes, ornamentation, and textile designs. Patents, where the legal requirements are met, can protect new inventions and technological processes.
Yet many entrepreneurs remain focused on the immediate demands of running a business—finding customers, buying materials, paying workers, and making sales—rather than protecting intangible assets that could become valuable in the future.
When copying becomes “free publicity”
For some Gambian creators, however, the problem goes even deeper: copying is not always viewed as infringement.
For eight years, fashion designer and tailor Momodou Secka has operated a tailoring business in Nema Kunku. He says he does not necessarily object when other people reproduce his designs.
“I see no issue with it. In fact, I feel happy that my designs go viral and are copied by others around,” Secka said.
He explained that he and other tailors sometimes use online design applications to find clothing designs created elsewhere and reproduce similar versions.
His attitude reflects a wider cultural and commercial challenge.
When a designer’s work is copied, the creator may see it as publicity. But copying can also undermine the creator’s ability to control how the design is used or generate income from it through licensing, partnerships, or commercial reproduction.
The issue is not about preventing inspiration. Fashion has always evolved through the exchange of ideas.
The question is whether the original creator should have the ability to decide when, how, and by whom a commercially valuable creation is reproduced.
From creativity to commercial value
This is where intellectual property becomes more than a legal concept.
A protected brand can become an asset that attracts customers and investors. A registered design can potentially be licensed. A patented invention can be commercialized. A trademark can help distinguish one business from competitors.
Kolley said intellectual property owners can license their rights to others and earn income from them.
The music industry provides an obvious example.
Songs played in restaurants, bars, hotels, and entertainment venues have commercial value. In systems where copyright and royalty collection are effectively enforced, artists and rights holders can receive compensation when their work is commercially used.
The Gambia, Kolley acknowledges, is still developing effective enforcement mechanisms.
That creates another possible explanation for the low level of local registration: people may not see the practical value of obtaining protection if they believe enforcement is weak.
A registration certificate has limited value to a small entrepreneur if the owner does not know how to enforce the rights it provides.
Kolley said intellectual property rights are private rights, meaning owners have an important responsibility to monitor their rights and take action when infringements occur.
They can approach the alleged infringer, seek an amicable settlement, involve lawyers, issue a cease-and-desist notice, or pursue the matter through the appropriate authorities and courts.
The protection gap
The consequences of weak awareness can extend beyond individual businesses.
The Gambia has a rich pool of cultural knowledge, traditional designs, artistic expressions, and indigenous practices. The country is also home to young entrepreneurs experimenting with technology, agriculture, manufacturing, and creative industries.
If these innovations are not adequately understood and protected, their creators may struggle to capture their full economic value.
Traditional knowledge presents an additional challenge. The Gambia is part of regional efforts to protect traditional knowledge and expressions of folklore, areas that can include traditional medicine, cultural expressions, and community knowledge.
But such protection is legally complex. Not every traditional practice automatically becomes an exclusive private right, and different forms of knowledge may require different forms of protection.
Again, awareness becomes critical.
Is registration worth it?
For Gambian entrepreneurs, the bigger question may ultimately be whether intellectual property protection is worth the cost, time, and effort.
The answer depends on the asset and the business.
Not every idea requires registration. Copyright, for example, generally arises differently from registered industrial property rights. Some intellectual property rights depend on registration, while others can arise automatically if legal requirements are met.
But for businesses whose commercial value depends heavily on a brand, distinctive design, invention, or other protectable asset, failing to understand the available protection can become expensive.
Kolley says the laws and expertise are available. The challenge is getting citizens to use them.
The Ministry of Justice has also been pursuing reforms aimed at strengthening the country’s intellectual property framework, including efforts to bring different aspects of IP protection into a more coherent institutional and legislative system.
Turning awareness into an economic strategy
The apparent dominance of foreign applicants in The Gambia’s IP filings should therefore be more than an interesting statistic.
It should prompt a national conversation about how Gambians perceive ideas, creativity, and ownership.
Why should a foreign company see value in protecting its brand in The Gambia while a Gambian entrepreneur selling a locally created product may not even know that such protection exists?
Why should a fashion designer spend weeks creating a unique design but regard copying as inevitable?
And why should entrepreneurs invest heavily in physical assets while leaving potentially valuable intellectual assets unprotected?
The answer may lie partly in education.
Intellectual property needs to move beyond the legal offices where applications are processed and into universities, business schools, entrepreneurship programs, fashion academies, music studios, technology hubs, and small-business communities.
Gambians are already producing intellectual property.
The missing step is recognizing it.
For Ceesay and Jeng, intellectual property should not be viewed merely as a mechanism for preventing theft. It can be a business strategy, one that allows creators and entrepreneurs to build brands, negotiate licensing agreements, attract investment, and generate additional revenue.
The challenge is therefore not a shortage of Gambian creativity.
It is a shortage of awareness about what that creativity is worth, and how the law can help protect it.
Until more Gambians begin treating their ideas, brands, designs, and innovations as assets, the country’s intellectual property system may continue to present an uncomfortable paradox:
Foreigners come to The Gambia knowing what they need to protect, while many Gambians remain unaware of what they already own.
