Botswana may be sitting on an intellectual property asset whose commercial value we have barely begun to exploit: the identity of Botswana itself.
Walk through markets, tourist centres and retail spaces and you will encounter the Botswana flag, national colours and representations associated with the country appearing on clothing, fabrics, hats, souvenirs and various forms of merchandise. Some products are locally produced; others originate beyond our borders.
The legal and economic question is simple: when Botswana’s national identity generates commercial value, who captures that value?
This is where intellectual property policy must meet economics.
The Government of Botswana already recognises that its national symbols cannot simply be appropriated for unrestricted commercial use. Its official procedure requires companies, organisations and independent enterprises wishing to use the national Flag or Coat of Arms to make a formal application to the Office of the President and provide details of the proposed use. The Government has further described the Coat of Arms as its legal property and stated that its use requires written permission.
The international IP framework also recognises the special character of State symbols. Article 6ter of the Paris Convention provides protection against certain unauthorised registration and use of State flags, armorial bearings and other State emblems as trademarks. Importantly, however, Article 6ter does not itself create an ordinary trademark right in those symbols.
The conversation therefore needs to move beyond prohibition towards commercialisation.
Botswana should consider developing a comprehensive national-symbol licensing framework under which approved commercial users may obtain clearly defined licences for specified categories of merchandise, subject to quality-control requirements, territorial restrictions and appropriate licence fees or royalties.
Imagine an authorised “Official Botswana” merchandise programme.
A textile manufacturer wishing to commercially exploit an approved national motif could enter into a licence. A foreign manufacturer producing Botswana-themed merchandise for commercial markets could similarly be required, where legally enforceable, to obtain the appropriate authorisation. Tourism merchandise could carry an official authentication mark distinguishing authorised products from unauthorised merchandise.
The objective would not be to prevent Batswana from celebrating their country.
Patriotism should remain accessible. Commercial exploitation is a different legal question.
A citizen waving the Botswana flag at an Independence celebration is not economically equivalent to an enterprise manufacturing thousands of products bearing protected national symbols for profit.
That distinction matters.
Government should therefore consider conducting a comprehensive IP audit of State-owned and State-controlled intangible assets: national symbols, official insignia, government-created artistic works, institutional brands, tourism identifiers and other commercially valuable assets.