From the Industrial Property Code of 2007 to the new comprehensive reforms of 2025, Cape Verde’s legal system has undergone a dramatic transformation that goes beyond incremental adjustments. Lawmakers pursued a broader reform that reflects the country’s changing economy and its deeper integration into the global IP landscape. Instead of merely updating antiquated policies, the agenda is now set by digitalization, interconnected markets and a knowledge-driven environment.
Even though the 2007 Code was a significant step in bringing domestic law closer to international standards, the 2025 Code goes further by reorganizing the system to address new technological and economic realities. The earlier Code covered the primary traditional categories of industrial property, including patents, utility models, trademarks, industrial designs, trade names and geographical indications. Its main goal was to bring the national framework into line with the demands of global trade and technological advancement. Nevertheless, it continued to be bound by a more conventional procedural model and failed to adequately address new types of intangible assets or new legal protection strategies
By contrast, the 2025 Code offers a far more substantial range of protection as it clearly attempts to close the gaps left by the previous regime by addressing issues like unregistered designs, plant varieties, traditional knowledge, trade secrets and non-traditional signs. In doing so, it reflects a clearer awareness of the economic value of innovation, identity, and intangible assets in today’s markets.
A further sign of this evolution is the Code’s response to technological change. By embracing electronic filing and legally valid electronic signatures, the new framework represents a step toward the digitalization of administrative procedures. This is more than just a technical advancement. It is a means of cutting expenses, expediting processing, enhancing system accessibility and strengthening the overall efficiency of industrial property management.
The reform should also be understood in light of the developments that took place back in 2022, when Cape Verde adopted a national strategic approach to intellectual property and joined a number of significant international instruments. These measures strengthened the nation’s integration into the global IP system and laid the groundwork for the more comprehensive reform, reflected in the 2025 Code. In this regard, the new Code ought to be viewed as the legal result of a more sweeping change in policy that began earlier in the decade.
These developments already show how extensive the scope of the 2025 reform is, but their full significance becomes clearer, however, when we move beyond its general policy rationale to examine its operative legal framework.
With regard to unregistered designs (Art. 274), the Code introduces an automatic form of protection against acts of copying, lasting for a period of three years from the date of first public disclosure within Cape Verde. Disclosure is deemed public where the design has been published, exhibited, or used in the course of trade in such a manner as to become accessible to specialised circles in the relevant sector. By contrast, independent creations and disclosures subject to confidentiality are expressly excluded from the scope of protection. This mechanism is intended to safeguard short-cycle designs without recourse to formal registration, thereby complementing the regime applicable to registered models.
In respect of plant varieties (Arts. 193–239), the Code establishes a sui generis system of protection applicable to new varieties that satisfy the cumulative requirements of distinctness, uniformity, stability, and novelty. Applications must be supported by official descriptions, a unique denomination, and the results of technical examinations. The duration of protection is fixed at twenty-five years, extended to thirty years in the case of trees and vines, and confers exclusive rights over production, reproduction, and commercialisation of propagating material. The regime further provides for specific limitations, including the farmer’s privilege (self-reproduction) and the possibility of compulsory licences justified by public interest considerations. It also ensures integration with the African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO) system under the Arusha Protocol for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, coupled with periodic technical verification and the maintenance of a public register. Notably, varieties protected under this regime are excluded from patentability.
Traditional knowledge (Arts. 275–283) is defined broadly as knowledge generated, preserved, and transmitted within communities across generations, encompassing, inter alia, biodiversity-related practices, agricultural techniques, health-related uses, and cultural expressions such as narratives, dances, and handicrafts. Such knowledge is recognised as collective community property and benefits from protection without any requirement of registration. The Code prohibits its unauthorised use in patents, trademarks, or other economic activities absent prior informed consent and appropriate disclosure. The competent authority, namely the Instituto Nacional da Propriedade Industrial de Cabo Verde, is empowered to refuse registrations incorporating such elements. Enforcement may be undertaken by the communities concerned or by the State. Protection is of indefinite duration and may cumulate with copyright where applicable. This regime reflects the implementation of the Swakopmund Protocol on the Protection of Traditional Knowledge and Expressions of Folklore, including the provision of civil and criminal sanctions, as well as mechanisms ensuring equitable remuneration.
The protection of trade secrets (Arts. 407-409) is correspondingly reinforced, encompassing unlawful acquisition, use, or disclosure of confidential information and know-how, as reflected in the preamble and in the general system of remedies. This framework is articulated in conjunction with the law of unfair competition, providing for sanctions in cases of infringement, subject to the existence of explicit or implicit obligations of confidentiality.
As regards non-traditional signs (Art. 284), the Code adopts a technologically neutral approach, recognising as registrable any sign capable of clear and precise representation, without imposing a strict requirement of graphic depiction. This includes, inter alia, sounds, colours, non-functional shapes, and composite signs, represented through available technological means such as audiovisual files or specialised software. Registration is refused where the sign lacks distinctiveness or is liable to mislead the public.
Enforcement mechanisms constitute a further central innovation. The 2025 Code (Arts. 468-500) significantly strengthens the system of sanctions applicable to infringement and acts of unfair competition, introducing more precise provisions on damages, injunctive relief, and criminal liability. This constitutes a marked departure from the 2007 regime, in which practical remedies were comparatively underdeveloped. By prioritising effective judicial and administrative enforcement, the reform ensures that intellectual property rights are translated into tangible protection, thereby deterring imitation and enhancing investor confidence in the domestic market.
Taken as a whole, these elements demonstrate that the new Code is not confined to a mere terminological update or procedural refinement. Rather, it seeks to establish a comprehensive and responsive legal framework suited to a knowledge-based economy, in which value is increasingly associated with innovation, identity, confidentiality, and digital accessibility. The reform thus combines substantive expansion, procedural simplification, and alignment with international instruments within a coherent legislative undertaking.
