Comparative Advertising in Nepal: How Far Can a Brand Name a Competitor?

What comparative use is — and what it becomes

The table's logic is one sentence: identification is fair use of a competitor's name, appropriation is not. Every row above the first two fails that test in a different way — by borrowing the mark's material, implying a relationship, or attacking a reputation — and each failure has its own evidentiary trail: the campaign files themselves.

The trademark logic underneath

Nepalese trademark law protects a sign's function: telling consumers where goods come from. Comparative advertising respects that function when the competitor's name is used to identify — 'compared to Brand X' — and violates it when the name is used as an asset: prominently featured, styled like the mark, or worked into creative so the campaign trades on the competitor's recognition.

The distinction is the same one Nepal's courts applied in the Tuborg–Mount Everest litigation, where the misuse of another's branded presentation was the heart of the case: the question is never 'did we name them' but 'what did we use their brand for'. An advertisement that needs the competitor's label to be understood has already crossed the line it is asking about.

The three exposure routes in Nepalese practice

Infringement and confusion — the campaign's use of a registered mark suggests sponsorship, licensing or a shared origin that does not exist. This is the DOI-complaint and court route, and the evidence is the campaign material itself. Unfair imitation — recreating packaging, colour schemes or label layouts even without the name: the site's coverage of imitation packaging maps this territory, where the look is treated as the asset being taken. Disparagement — statements about the competitor that go beyond comparison into denigration; reputations attract protection beyond the register, and the tone of the campaign is what gets read.

Well-known marks raise the stakes further: Nepal's courts have recognised protection for famous brands beyond their registrations, and a campaign leaning on a household name inherits that stricter regime.

The subtraction test before launch

One practical review catches most comparative-advertising problems before they are printed: subtract the competitor from the advertisement. Remove their name, their pack, their imagery — and ask what remains. If the remaining advertisement still makes a truthful claim about your own product, the comparison was identification, and you are on the safe side of the line. If the advertisement collapses — no joke, no visual, no point — it was leaning on the competitor's brand as material, and that is the exposure the table above prices.

Run the test with the claims file next to it: every superiority statement needs the substantiation behind it, dated and documentable. The campaigns that survive both checks are the ones whose lawyers never need to meet the marketing team's enthusiasm.

Running a compliant comparison campaign

1. 1

   Compare on your own facts

   Substantiate every superiority claim with testing or data you can produce. The truthful comparison is the defensible one — and the one that survives a challenge.

2. 2

   Use your own creative

   Name the competitor in text where needed; never recreate their label, borrow their logo, or style your ad to resemble their material. If the mock-up needs their pack, rewrite the ad — and remember the agencies carry IP responsibility too; the clearance habit protects client and agency alike.

3. 3

   Clear the campaign before launch

   A short review against the three routes — confusion, imitation, disparagement — by whoever holds the brand's legal file. Agencies carry IP responsibility too; the clearance habit protects client and agency alike.