Design Application Drawings in Nepal: Preparing Representations That Define Your Monopoly
Design application drawings decide the scope of a Nepalese design registration — four sets of representations, views, and the mistakes that shrink rights.
In Nepal's design system, the drawings are the rights. The Department protects what the representations clearly show — nothing more, nothing implied — which makes the image set the most consequential part of a Schedule 1(b) application.
Applications fail or shrink here more often than they fail on the design itself: a cluttered photograph, a missing view, a variant nobody depicted. This guide covers what design application drawings must show, and the preparation habits that make the monopoly match the product.
In short
Design application drawings in Nepal are filed on Schedule 1(b) as four sets of representations — the images that show exactly what is claimed — together with particulars stating the article and the features claimed. Good sets are consistent (same article, same angles), complete (every view and variant the monopoly should cover), and uncluttered (neutral backgrounds; the design on display, not its surroundings), and they state clearly whether colour or surface pattern is claimed. What the representations leave out is not protected, and queries over unclear images are answered by amendment — so the drawing set is prepared before filing, not argued afterwards.
What design application drawings must accomplish
A design registration protects the visual features of a product — shape, configuration, pattern or ornamentation — and the representations are the only evidence of which features those are. The Department examines the filing against the narrow Section 14 grounds and earlier registrations; it does not investigate what you meant to claim. The set therefore has to define the monopoly unaided.
The standard practice is four sets of representations with the images identical across sets, accompanied by particulars that name the article and state the claim — including what is disclaimed. A representation that leaves a feature ambiguous does not widen the right; it invites a query that slows the file.
Views, variants and completeness
For a three-dimensional product, the set shows the views that define the shape — front, side, top and the angles a buyer actually sees; for a pattern or surface design, the repeat and its application to the article. A product sold in variants — sizes, colourways, model differences — needs each variant visible if it is to be covered: the Department protects what is depicted, not the product family.
Completeness has a boundary: depicting more than you claim can limit the right to the depicted detail. The preparation step is deliberate — list the features the monopoly should reach, then confirm every one appears clearly in the set.
| Check | Why |
|---|---|
| Four identical sets prepared | Standard filing practice on Schedule 1(b) |
| All defining views included | Undepicted angles are unprotected |
| Every variant depicted | The register covers images, not families |
| Neutral, uncluttered backgrounds | The design — not its surroundings — on display |
| Colour / pattern claim stated | Silence is read against the claim |
| Particulars name the article | Ambiguity here draws queries |
The mistakes that shrink a design right
The recurring failures are photographic, not artistic. Studio photographs taken in a showroom place the product in an environment that reads as part of the design — or hides the very features claimed. Renderings that mix prototype and production versions create ambiguity about which look is claimed. Sets that show one variant of a multi-variant product leave the other variants to whoever depicts them first.
None of these is fatal at filing; each is expensive after. Queries over unclear representations are answered by amendment, which costs correspondence time in a process otherwise measured in weeks to months — and an amendment cannot add what the original set never showed.
Preparation workflow, and what follows
The workflow is short but worth doing in order: define the claim (shape, pattern, ornament — and whether colour is part of it); photograph or draw each view against a neutral background; add the variants; check the sets are identical; and draft the particulars naming the article and the claimed features. The application then goes in with the NPR 1,000 fee, rising to NPR 7,000 at registration in current practice.
After acceptance the design registers for a 5-year term, renewable twice — 15 years maximum — and publishes with a 35-day objection window. Every renewal, licence and enforcement action later reads the same image set filed today, which is the practical reason to treat the drawings as the core drafting exercise of the whole registration.
Define the claim
Shape, pattern, ornament — and whether colour or surface treatment is claimed — written down before any image is made.
Build the set
All views, all variants, neutral backgrounds, four identical sets, particulars naming the article.
File and calendar
File on Schedule 1(b), then diarise the 5-year term and its renewal windows from the registration date.
Who makes the representations — and who owns them
The images in the application are works in their own right, made by someone: a product photographer, a rendering studio, an in-house designer. Nepal's copyright default vests each image in its creator, so the studio that photographed your product for the filing owns the photographs until a written assignment says otherwise — an awkward title to hold under a design registration.
The fix is one clause at commissioning: a present-tense assignment of the representations and their source files to the applicant. It costs a page, and it keeps the registration, the images and the ability to reproduce them in enforcement aligned with the same owner.
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.