Split a Trademark Application in Nepal? What the System Actually Allows
Splitting a trademark application in Nepal starts from a surprise: there are no multi-class applications to split. Sequence, narrow and file in parallel.
The question comes from founders who know other jurisdictions: 'Can we split the application — keep the goods that passed and refile the ones that did not?' In Nepal the question dissolves, because there was never a multi-class application to split.
That is not the end of the story. What Nepali practice actually offers — sequencing, narrowing and parallel filings — answers the same needs, once you see the system's shape.
In short
Splitting a trademark application in Nepal is unnecessary by design: Section 18A requires one class per application, so every filing is already single-class. What the system supports instead is sequencing (file the revenue-critical class first, add others before entering them), narrowing (amend the specification in response to an objection — no split mechanism needed), and multiple applications in the same class for different goods lists. Every path costs per class: NPR 1,000 to file and NPR 5,000 to register per application, in current practice.
In Nepal there is nothing to split
Section 18A of the PDTA ties each application to a single Nice class: one Schedule 1(c) filing, one class, one fee. There is no multi-class application and therefore no split procedure — the granularity applicants ask for in other offices is the default here.
The practical consequence: the real questions are sequencing (which classes first), narrowing (what to do when an objection hits part of a goods list) and parallel filing (how many applications one business should run in the same class). Each has a clean answer.
The scenarios behind every split question
| Scenario | What 'splitting' means here | The practical answer |
|---|---|---|
| A multi-class business | Cover several product lines | Separate Schedule 1(c) applications per class — sequenced by revenue |
| An objection hits some goods | Keep the good part, drop the rest | Amend the specification in response — no split mechanism needed |
| Two product lines in one class | Protect them separately | Two applications in the same class — allowed, examined separately |
| A budget that cannot fund everything | Protect the core now | File the revenue class first; add adjacent classes before entering them |
| A mark used on different goods in different years | Time protection to entry | Stagger the filings to match the product calendar |
Narrowing the trademark application's specification during examination
When an examiner objects that some goods in your specification conflict with an earlier mark, the efficient answer is usually amendment: strike or narrow the offending items, keep the rest, and the application proceeds. The specification is amended in the written response within the stated period — this is the closest thing Nepal has to a split, and it is faster and cheaper than refiling.
The trade-off is scope: a narrowed registration covers only the goods that survived. That is often the right trade — a registration for the goods you actually sell beats a broader one that never registers.
Multiple applications in the same class
Nothing prevents one business from holding several single-class applications in the same class, each with its own goods list. The technique matters when product families have different risk profiles: a house mark for the core line, separate filings for lines with different names or different conflict exposure.
It also matters defensively — multiple applications create multiple renewal anniversaries, so the technique costs calendar discipline as well as fees. NPR 3,500 per class every 7 years, per application, in current practice.
Sequencing: the strategy the single-class rule rewards
The single-class structure punishes the all-at-once reflex: every class filed is a class examined, responded for and renewed forever — and an unused registration invites a Section 18C one-year non-use inquiry. The rewarded plan is revenue-first: the core class immediately, the second class as that launch approaches, defensive adjacent classes when the risk is concrete.
Foreign brands run the same logic against the six-month Paris Convention priority window — filing the Nepal classes that mirror the home filing while the priority clock runs.
The sequencing plan, step by step
Five steps turn the class list into a filing calendar:
Map the goods to classes
Every commercial item to its Nice class — the class headings are doors, the goods text is the room.
Rank classes by revenue and risk
File where the money is; queue the rest against real entry dates.
File per class
One Schedule 1(c) each — the fee calculator makes the multi-application budget honest.
Narrow, do not split, under objection
Amend the specification in response; the surviving goods proceed.
Calendar every application separately
Each has its own examination, publication, 90-day window and renewal anniversaries.
The cost arithmetic of the split
Because every event prices per application, the honest budget is per class across the journey: NPR 1,000 at filing, NPR 5,000 at registration, NPR 3,500 at each 7-year renewal — in current practice, confirmable at the Department before payment. A five-class brand is five of everything.
That arithmetic is not a reason to file fewer classes; it is a reason to file the right ones. Ten classes filed deliberately beat twenty filed hopefully — every class you file is a class you must examine for, respond for and renew.
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.