Movement Against the Trademark of ‘Yoruba’

Following the retreat of the UK fashion brand Timbuktu Global in the ‘Yoruba trademark war,’ the online outrage hashtag #Yorubaisnotforsale generated concerns and conversations around cultural appropriation and its moral, cultural and legal implications. Yinka Olatunbosun reports

Gbemisola Isimi, the founder of CultureTree was born in Lagos but moved to the United Kingdom at 11. Raised by her maternal grandmother, she could speak Yoruba fluently. But after relocating to the UK, she stopped speaking Yoruba and that continued for 10 years till she got to college and made new friends who were Yoruba speakers. She gained the confidence to speak Yoruba once again. But she couldn’t say the same for her eight-year old daughter. Isimi tried to teach her Yoruba but the online resources were not available.

It was that sense of identity and cultural pride that birthed her initiative CultureTree. She created the first animated Yoruba nursery rhyme video and decided to run an academy that specialises in Yoruba language for children of Nigerians in diaspora. This initiative began to grow, with partnership from Mayor of London, Westminster City Council, British Library. CultureTree produced children content for BBC, Vox Africa and YANGA TV.

Isimi decided to concretise her business by attempting to trademark the name “Yoruba Stars’’, a popular nomenclature among young Yoruba students. Then, she was informed by the IPO office that Timbuktu Limited in Lancashire had registered the word Yoruba. The clothing retailer owned by two white British from North of England would later restrict her from registering the name ‘’Yoruba Stars.’’ After much deliberations, Timbuktu Global offered to sell the trademark to CultureTree but Isimi refused the offer. She felt slapped in the face- and called it cultural appropriation. She began to mull a legal action.

Her post regarding this experience on social media triggered an avalanche of angry messages to @TimbuktuGlobal across their social media platforms. The fashion brand quickly blocked off messages and subsequently released what seemed like an apology:

“We will be releasing Yoruba to Culture Tree immediately. They can claim Yoruba without objection. We have made no profit from Yoruba and never intended to. We have actually spent thousands of pounds protecting the trademark Yoruba for several years and we are now happy to hand over / release this name to Culture Tree for free, no costs, no fees …’’

Still, the matter was not one that Nigerians would allow to live rent-free in their heads. THISDAY sought the views of some promoters of Yoruba culture as well as legal and brand communication experts.

The award-winning writer and co-author, ‘Who’s Who in the Yoruba Pantheon,’ Peju Akande considered it as a form of racism.

“I personally think it’s an affront, especially as the name ‘Yoruba’ is being banned by other native speakers. If other non-Yoruba choose to use it without placing any form of restriction on other users, that would be good but to say no one can touch the name because it has been trademarked, even if done by Yorubas, I think is ugly, very wrong. What’s in a name? it is the totality of a person, place, thing. When we can’t use the word that symbolizes our origin, our tradition, our culture, when it is being taken over by a foreigner, this speaks of another form of colonialism and this is unacceptable,’’ she argued.

While reflecting on the damage this could do to the fashion brand, Akande believed that the impact would be negative.

“They would be seen as racist, as people who have stolen everything from us; our lips, our butt, our skin and now our name, the one word that identifies us worldwide,’’ she said.

A legal consultant on Intellectual Property (IP) who preferred anonymity explained why it may not be wrong for a brand to trademark a name that is totally unrelated to its product or services. He cited the example of the American multi-national technology company Apple that uses the apple fruit image for a business that is tech-oriented. For him, the Timbuktu Global issue with the Yoruba trademark was a question of what is morally acceptable.

“Morally speaking, this is wrong as it is cultural appropriation for monetary gain and chances are that the people who oversaw the trademark application in the trademark office may not be familiar or have very limited knowledge of the Yoruba culture.

That being said, it should be noted that trademark laws should be reviewed in a manner that prohibits the trademark of tribes and culture and it is important to note that this is not the first time this had happened nor will it be the last. This is similar to a case that happened with the brand, Urban Outfitters where they trademarked the native American tribe Navajo for a selection of their clothes,’’ he recounted.

Fortunately, the tribe had registered the name Navajo as trademark since 1943. Urban Outfitters started using the name in 2001 and a lawsuit was filed against them in 2012 by the Nation of Navajo. Eventually, the matter was settled in April 2016. In the case of Timbuktu Global, the Yoruba trademark had been acquired since 2015 and no one knew this until CultureTree discovered.

“The trademark office’s job is not to police the use of marks but register them. The onus is on the people to check and call them out,’’ he added.

A Public Relations consultant, prolific writer and co-author of ‘Who’s Who in Yoruba Pantheon,’ Anthony Kan Onwordi popularly known as Toni Kan shared a very different perspective.

“It is a sentimental attachment nothing else. We bear English names. I know an Igbo girl named Chelsea. I know one named Zurich. Are the English and Swiss going to complain? We say the world is a global village, but we are staying provincial. Speaking from the PR point of view, this is a big boost for Timbuktu. Up till Monday morning, I never heard about them and now the whole world knows about them,’’ he argued.

His view was a sharp contrast to that of another decorated Nigerian writer, journalist and former Presidential Adviser on Research and Documentation, Molara Wood who believes it is a case of cultural appropriation, that is the use of elements of a non-dominant culture in a way that doesn’t respect their original meaning.

“It is the thingification of people; it continues the exploitation of people who are outside the mainstream western culture. It continues the denigration of African people and people of African descent. It is purely exploitative. It really goes deep into what scholars had been talking about for a long time about the ways in which cultures outside the west are dominated and used in an exploitative way for financial incentive.

“It is just outrageous and maddening; it is mind-boggling how this firm was able to register a trademark with the authority in the UK with the name Yoruba which then purports to prevent anyone else from having any kind of registration of a company with the word Yoruba in it,’’ she said.

Furthermore, she described the situation as ‘original, undeniable cultural appropriation’ which should not be taken for granted because ‘Yoruba’ word relates to the identity and heritage of millions spread across the globe.

“We should be concerned because nothing would stop them if they had gotten away with it and nothing will stop anyone from going to trademark Igbo or Itsekiri anywhere in the world. We should be concerned about it because it is who we are. It should not be for the exclusive use of people who do not contribute to the culture or have any respect for the culture or any understanding or attempt to learn the culture.

“It is not coming from a respectful stance. It is pure exploitative; it is cultural domination and denial. It is cultural vampirism. It is in standing against this that we prevent such galactic insult from befalling any other group again,’’ she said.

She also commended the effort of CultureTree for bringing the issue to international limelight and urged cultural custodians to remain vigilant to prevent any future reoccurrence.

“We have drawn a line and we have made clear that you can’t do this. If something of this magnitude could be attempted, then it means that we all have to remain vigilant. Because almost every other instance of cultural appropriation I have ever heard of, nothing had been on the scale of this. It shows that we all have to be vigilant. It sends a message to people in the global north that people of African descent will not stand for this anymore,’’ she said.

Oludamola Adebowale, a culture activist and the Creative Director/Founder, ASIRI Magazine, also remarked that Timbuktu Global’s move to own Yoruba trademark amounts to an infringement on the rights of Yoruba people.

“It means cultural, spiritual and socio-cultural infringement. It is also demeaning and insulting to the entire 60 million people that make up the Yoruba race today. The name should not have been considered for a trademark by the company in the first place, the word Yoruba should not be the property of anybody.

“It speaks of the identity of the Yoruba people all around the world. It is also borne out of the need to colonize, subjugate and make something their property. It is not just about Yoruba; it is about any word that captures the essence of an African. It should be a wake-up call that if we do not put our house in order, other people would come and take what is ours,’’ he said.

Attachments area