IP Litigation

Apex Law Chamber has a dedicated intellectual property litigation team with more than 28 years of experience in IP disputes before the Supreme Court of Nepal and the High Courts. Our practice combines extensive courtroom experience with a sophisticated understanding of the commercial, regulatory and strategic dimensions of intellectual property disputes.

We have been consistently involved in the development and evolution of intellectual property jurisprudence, acting in matters that have raised significant and often novel questions of trademark and IP law. Our experience includes disputes concerning trademark dilution, protection of well-known trademarks, transborder reputation, bad-faith registration, and the protection of identical or similar trademarks in the same class where the goods or services are distinct. We have also advised and litigated on questions concerning the distinction between geographical indications and trademarks, as well as other emerging principles governing the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights.

We handle the full spectrum of IP disputes, including trademark and copyright infringement, passing off, opposition, cancellation, rectification, invalidity and related contentious proceedings, representing clients before the relevant administrative authorities and the courts. We develop litigation strategies that combine the protection of established rights with arguments addressing new and evolving questions of intellectual property law.

With more than two decades of sustained courtroom experience and a continuing role in the development of Nepalese IP jurisprudence, Apex Law Chamber has acted in complex, commercially significant and precedent-setting intellectual property disputes. Our practice is particularly suited to matters where the protection of valuable IP rights intersects with questions of reputation, market identity, unfair competition and the evolving boundaries of intellectual property protection.

Most intellectual property disputes begin before the Department of Industry, which decides trademark, patent and design matters at first instance, including opposition and cancellation. Under section 27 of the Patent, Design and Trade Mark Act, 1965, a party dissatisfied with a Department order may appeal to the High Court within 35 days, and matters of principle go on to the Supreme Court. Copyright disputes and criminal proceedings run through the district courts. Knowing which forum will decide your point, and what that forum will accept as proof, shapes the case long before a pleading is drafted.

We act across the full contentious range: trademark opposition and cancellation, trademark infringement, patent and design infringement, copyright infringement including moral rights claims, non-use and bad faith challenges, ownership and title disputes, cross-class protection and well-known mark claims, and appeals from Department decisions. We represent both claimants and defendants, and we take on defence work as readily as enforcement, because a large part of practical risk management is knowing how a claim will look from the other side.

Nepalese proceedings turn heavily on documentary proof, so the evidence is built before the dispute is opened. That means dated screenshots and listings, invoices, packaging and physical samples, seller and distributor details, delivery records, witness information, and where appropriate controlled purchases with a preserved chain of custody. Registration, renewal and recordal records must be clean, because a defect in the register is the first thing a well advised opponent will attack. We do not rely on an online listing that can be deleted the moment a notice arrives.

Before proceedings we compare the marks or rights as actually used, the goods or services, the customers, the sales channels and the surrounding presentation. We test validity, non-use exposure, ownership, authorisation, exhaustion and parallel trade, the urgency of the situation and the real likelihood of confusion or reputational harm. That assessment tells you whether the strongest move is a cease and desist letter, a marketplace report, a negotiated undertaking, an opposition or cancellation, an administrative complaint, a border approach or a court action.

We have litigated intellectual property cases across a wide range of industries and through every level of the Nepalese court system, and several have contributed to how the law here is applied. Our reported and published work includes the recognition of Hilton and AIWA as well-known marks, the recognition of TikTok as a famous trademark by the Department of Industry, the Supreme Court's cross-class protection ruling in the Visa case, the Supreme Court's landmark decision on Scotch Whisky and origin protection, High Court decisions on Toofan and Too Yumm, the deceptive similarity test applied between GM and GMS at Patan High Court, the Nikai and Yiwu cross-class decision, and the Tirth Agro Technology dispute.

Beyond civil and administrative proceedings we pursue criminal action against infringement and counterfeiting where the statutory offence is made out, and we use alternative dispute resolution where a negotiated outcome serves the client better than a judgment. The right answer is often a combination: an administrative filing to secure the register position, a commercial negotiation to stop the trade, and litigation held in reserve. Our approach is to minimise risk, resolve disputes cost-effectively and keep the strategy aligned with the client's business objective rather than with the dispute for its own sake.

We combine close familiarity with Nepalese court practice, procedure and filing culture with the international expectations of multinational rights holders and their in-house teams. That means clear early advice on prospects, realistic timelines for a jurisdiction where a contested matter takes time, structured reporting, and coordination with foreign law firms where the Nepalese action is one front in a larger campaign.