The Non-Use Cancellation Process in Nepal, Step by Step
The non-use cancellation process in Nepal, mapped: the one-year use rule, the petition at the DOI, the evidence exchange, and the defensive habits that avoid it.
The registration exists on paper and nowhere else — no shops, no listings, no invoices. In Nepal that registration is not just weak; it is cancellable, and a competitor who wants the name cleared knows exactly which rule to use.
The non-use cancellation process in Nepal is administrative, documentary and entirely predictable. Here is how it runs — from both chairs.
In short
The non-use cancellation process in Nepal rests on Section 18C of the PDTA: a mark not brought into use within one year of registration faces a Department inquiry and cancellation. A petitioner gathers absence-of-use evidence and files at the DOI; the proprietor is put to proof and answers with a use file — sales by brand, invoices, marketing, distribution. The Department decides on the papers, with an appeal route beyond. The defence is built in advance: dated use records from day one, renewals current, and a watch so the petition never arrives as a surprise.
The one-year rule in Nepal that anchors the process
Section 18C is Nepal's use requirement: a mark not used within one year of registration can be the subject of a Department inquiry and cancellation. The rule exists to keep the register honest — Nepal grants registrations without prior use, and the one-year clock is how the system asks whether the registration was ever going to mean anything.
Two consequences follow. For proprietors, the first year of registration is an evidence-building deadline, not a grace period. For challengers, the rule is the cheapest route to clearing a paper registration — no trade shows, no marketplace presence, no case.
The non-use process, stage by stage
| Stage | What happens | Who acts |
|---|---|---|
| Petition | An interested party files for cancellation on non-use grounds at the DOI | The challenger, through the prescribed process |
| Notice | The registered proprietor is put to answer | The Department |
| Evidence exchange | Use records against absence-of-use evidence | Both sides, in writing |
| Decision | The Department decides on the papers and submissions | The DOI, with appeal rights beyond |
| Aftermath | A cancelled mark leaves the register — available to anyone to apply for | Whoever files first, in a first-to-file system |
What counts as use
The proprietor's answer lives or dies on the use file: sales records identifying the brand, dated invoices, advertising and marketing spend, distribution agreements and shelf presence — evidence that shows the mark working in Nepali commerce for the registered goods. Use for different goods, or by a different entity without a recorded licence, is the kind of answer that looks like use and is not.
This is why the record-keeping habit matters more than the litigation: a use file assembled after the petition arrives is an argument; one assembled from day one is a fact. The DOI's proof-of-use notices run on the same evidence.
The process, step by step, from the challenger's chair
Five steps from register check to decision:
Confirm the registration and its timeline
Registration date, class, goods, renewal status — the one-year clock and the current use window both run from the register.
Gather the absence evidence
Market checks, absence from the channels the goods would sell in, and the proprietor's public footprint — or lack of it.
File the petition with grounds
The non-use ground, the facts, the exhibits — precise and documented, the register persuasive at the DOI.
Meet the proprietor's proof
Where use is shown for different goods or dates, the reply narrows the dispute to what the registration actually covers.
Plan the aftermath
If the mark cancels, the name is available — the filing to replace it should be ready the same week.
The proprietor's defence is built before the petition
Three habits make a non-use petition unattractive. First, the use file from registration day — dated, branded, kept. Second, renewal discipline: a mark current on its 7-year renewals (35-day windows, NPR 3,500 per class in current practice) reads as a mark someone is actually using. Third, record currency — owner and address matching reality, licences recorded at NPR 2,000 per mark so licensed use is attributable.
None of that is litigation strategy; all of it is calendar and folder work. The registrations that survive non-use challenges are the ones whose owners never needed the defence.
Where non-use sits among the cancellation grounds
Non-use is the workhorse, but not the only ground: prior-rights conflicts and bad faith also ground cancellations, and lapsed renewals cancel automatically without any petition at all. Choosing among them is a fit question — evidence you can actually produce, against a registration you can actually reach.
And the strategic note for both sides: cancellation is the post-registration remedy. The cheaper moment to stop a conflicting mark is the 90-day opposition window after publication — which is one more reason the watch belongs at the centre of the portfolio.
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.