Trademark Coexistence in Nepal: When Two Similar Marks Can Share the Market
Trademark coexistence agreements in Nepal: when the DOI accepts them, what they must say, and the conflicts they settle better than an opposition ever could.
Two businesses, two similar names, one market. The instinct is to fight — an opposition, a cancellation, years of correspondence. The smarter question is whether the marks can simply live side by side, on terms both owners sign.
Coexistence is not a loophole in Nepal's system. It is how a particular kind of conflict — real similarity, no real confusion — ends well.
In short
Trademark coexistence in Nepal works when the similarity is arguable rather than blatant, the goods or territories differ enough that consumers are unlikely to be confused, and both owners would rather trade than litigate. The agreement records how the marks will operate — scope, geography, look-and-feel limits — and is put before the Department of Industry in opposition or examination contexts, where it informs but does not bind the examiner. It fails when the marks are effectively identical, when one party wants exclusivity rather than peace, or when the earlier mark itself is not maintained — a coexistence built on a registration that lapses at renewal protects no one.
What trademark coexistence actually is
A coexistence agreement is a contract between two trademark owners recording how their similar marks will operate without confusing the market: who uses what, where, for which goods, and in what visual form. It is private law doing the work the register cannot — the register shows two entries; the agreement explains why they are not at war.
Nepal's system accommodates the arrangement because its refusal grounds are conflict-based: Section 18(1) refuses marks identical or deceptively similar to earlier marks for the same or similar goods. Where the goods are distinct, the trade channels separate, or the similarity is superficial, a reasoned coexistence gives the examiner and any opposer a factual basis for allowing both marks to stand.
When coexistence works — and when it does not
| Situation | Coexistence outlook |
|---|---|
| Similar names, different goods and trade channels | Strong — the classic coexistence case |
| Similar names, overlapping goods, different regions of operation | Workable — geographic limits must be enforceable in practice |
| Near-identical marks, same goods | Weak — confusion is the reasonable inference; opposition or rebrand is the honest route |
| One party seeks exclusivity, not peace | No deal — identify this early and litigate or rebrand instead |
| Earlier registration lapses for non-renewal | The agreement's foundation is gone — maintain what you agreed on |
What the agreement must say
A coexistence that survives contact with a dispute is specific. The load-bearing clauses:
- The marks, depicted — both marks reproduced exactly as registered or filed, with the register details
- Scope limits — the goods or services each mark covers, stated by class and specification wording
- Geographic or channel limits — where and how each operates, in terms that can actually be policed
- Look-and-feel covenants — colour, typography, layout differences agreed so the trade sees two brands, not one family
- No-challenge terms — each party's undertaking not to oppose or cancel the other within the agreed scope
- Enforcement cooperation — a duty to tell the other about third-party copycats, and to coordinate where useful
Using the coexistence inside a DOI proceeding in Nepal
In an opposition, a coexistence proposal can settle the case: the opposer withdraws on agreed terms, or the parties file the agreement for the Department's consideration. In examination, a consent letter from the earlier owner — the narrower instrument — can support an application the similarity ground would otherwise block. Neither document compels the examiner: the Department decides registrability on the statutory grounds, and a privately negotiated peace is evidence, not immunity.
The practical sequence when a conflict surfaces: run the conflict assessment first (similarity, goods, priority), approach the earlier owner with a proposal rather than a threat, and put the negotiated terms in writing before either party files anything at the DOI. The 90-day opposition window is enough time for a genuine negotiation if it starts at day 15, not day 80.
The maintenance the agreement depends on
Every coexistence rests on the registrations beneath it. A Nepalese mark renews every 7 years on Schedule 2(f), within 35 days of expiry, with a 6-month grace period carrying a NPR 1,000 fine — and a registration that lapses by non-renewal, or is cancelled for non-use within one year of registration, takes the agreement's foundation with it. The parties' renewal calendars and use records are, in effect, part of the agreement's infrastructure.
Review the agreement when either business changes: a new sub-brand, a new territory, a redesign — each can push a mark outside the negotiated envelope, and the renewal conversation is cheaper than the surprise.
Want this handled for your brand?
IP Watch monitors new trademark publications in Nepal and alerts you to potentially conflicting marks — with the context needed to review them.
This article is general information, not legal advice.