Nepal is at a crossroads between an outdated legal requirement and its obligations under the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement), said Ram Chandra Subedi, founding and managing partner at Apex Law Chamber in Kathmandu.

Nepal’s Patent, Design and Trademark Act, 1965 (PDTA) includes a strict requirement for trademark use via Section 18C. It states: “In case a trademark registered at the department is not brought into use within one year from the date of registration thereof, the department shall conduct necessary inquiries and cancel such registration.”

Subedi revealed that this requirement appears unusually stringent compared to international standards. Under Article 19(1) of the TRIPS Agreement, to which Nepal is a signatory, member nations may allow cancellation for non-use after three consecutive years at the least, following registration of the trademark. However, there will be no cancellation if the trademark owner provides valid reasons for non-use.

Nepal is also a member of the World Trade Organization.

Despite this, Section 18C remained largely dormant. “For nearly 60 years since the enactment of the PDTA, the Department of Industry – the authority overseeing trademark registration – never implemented the one-year use inquiry or cancellation process. As a result, trademark owners, both domestic and foreign, operated under the practical understanding that Nepal did not enforce a mandatory use requirement within the first year of registration,” said Subedi.

However, on August 19, 2025, Nepal’s trademark registry issued a public notice requiring registrants to submit proof of use for their registered trademarks. This development raised questions:

• Would the Department begin cancelling marks based on the one-year requirement in Section 18C?
• Would this retroactive enforcement conflict with the TRIPS Agreement?

• What evidence of use would be considered sufficient?

Yet, on September 24, 2025, the Department of Industry suspended the public notice. The nationwide anti-corruption protests by Nepalese Gen Zs that month resulted in damaged files and infrastructure which would have made implementation of the notice impossible. Hence, the suspension.

“While the suspension alleviated immediate concerns, it left behind several unresolved issues regarding the long-term direction of Nepal’s trademark use policy,” said Subedi.

“The brief attempt to enforce the one-year use rule revealed both the need for legal modernization and the potential consequences of abrupt administrative action. Going forward, aligning national law with international standards and providing clear guidance to trademark owners will be essential for ensuring predictability, compliance and investor confidence,” he pointed out.

- Espie Angelica A. de Leon