Trademark Counterstatement in Nepal: Answering an Opposition at the DOI
Trademark counterstatement in Nepal: how an applicant answers a DOI opposition — the response period, the evidenced answer, settlement and what silence costs.
The notice arrives during a launch: your accepted trademark application has been opposed at the Department of Industry, and the file now moves on someone else's schedule. What you do in the next few weeks decides whether the registration survives.
The counterstatement is that answer — and the mistakes applicants make with it are consistent enough to list.
In short
A trademark counterstatement in Nepal is the applicant's written answer to an opposition filed at the DOI. The opposition arrives within roughly 90 days of the application's Bulletin publication; the Department then puts the application to answer and communicates the response period — which should be diarised immediately and treated as short. A good counterstatement answers each ground point by point with exhibits (use evidence, registrations, transliterated comparisons), considers settlement in parallel (consent letters, coexistence), and prepares for a hearing where one is set. Silence is the worst option: the opposition proceeds and the application is refused without your case being heard.
The letter that starts a countdown you did not set
An opposition can be filed by anyone with grounds within roughly 90 days of your application's publication in the Industrial Property Bulletin. The Department's procedure then puts the applicant to answer: the response period is communicated through the file, and the exchange proceeds on written submissions.
Two practical facts follow. The deadline is not yours to extend — treat it as short the moment the notice arrives. And the papers are the case: what the examiner reads is what the file contains, not what you intended to argue.
The trademark counterstatement process in Nepal, step by step
Read the grounds, not the tone
Map each stated ground to the evidence behind it. An opposition built on Section 18(1) similarity needs a different answer from one built on prior use or bad faith.
Diarise the response date immediately
In both calendars, with an internal deadline days earlier. A missed response date is the one error no drafting quality can repair.
Build the answer on exhibits
Dated use records in Nepal, registrations and their classes, a transliterated comparison chart if similarity is alleged, and honest distinctions in the goods. Adjectives answered with adjectives convince nobody.
Consider settlement in parallel
Consent letters and coexistence arrangements resolve a real share of oppositions — worth exploring with the opponent's agent while the answer is being prepared, not after it fails.
Prepare for the hearing if one is set
Hearings focus the contested grounds. The preparation is the file: exhibits in order, the honest weaknesses known, the key distinctions rehearsed.
The opposition exchange, and who owns each move
The table's discipline: your moves are the second row and everything that feeds it. Everything after is the Department's rhythm.
| Stage | Moved by | What good practice looks like |
|---|---|---|
| Opposition filed | Opponent | Within ~90 days of Bulletin publication — grounds plus exhibits |
| Applicant's answer | Applicant | Point-by-point, evidenced, within the period the DOI sets |
| Further submissions | Both sides | Only where the Department invites them |
| Hearing | DOI (where required) | Focused on the contested grounds; the file does the arguing |
| Decision | DOI | Written; appealable through the Revenue Tribunal and courts |
The counterstatement mistakes that lose registrations
Behind all five sits the same principle: the counterstatement is a filing, not a conversation. It should read as the strongest honest version of your case, exhibit by exhibit.
- Silence — the opposition proceeds unanswered and the application is refused by default
- Deadline drift — assuming the response window runs on the 90-day opposition clock rather than the period the file sets
- Answering the opponent, not the grounds — the examiner weighs registrability, not grievance
- Ignoring the transliteration issue — cross-script similarity answers need the romanised forms in evidence
- No parallel settlement track — a winnable answer and a sensible coexistence deal are not mutually exclusive
After the answer: the long game
If the opposition is dismissed, the application proceeds to registration — and the relationship with the opponent becomes a watch question, not a war. If it succeeds in whole or part, the appeal routes exist (Revenue Tribunal, then the courts), and the site's after-opposition guide maps the next steps.
Either way, the episode is a calendar lesson: the opposition existed because your publication was watched by someone disciplined. The same watch, run from your side, is how the next one is seen coming.
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.