Notable Copyright Cases in Nepal

Nepal has very little published copyright case law. We checked the Supreme Court's own reporter and found one copyright decision we can stand behind. This page explains what it held, why the case bank is so thin, and what the Copyright Act 2002 gives an owner instead.

Key takeaways

• The governing statute is the Copyright Act 2002 (2059 BS), not the Patent, Design and Trade Mark Act.
• We verified one reported decision: Nepal Government v. Yadav Dawadi, NKP 2066, Decision No. 8178.
• It turned on a deadline, not on what counts as copying.
• Other copyright matters circulate online that we could not confirm in the official reporter.
• Nepal's reporter carries Supreme Court decisions, so district and appellate rulings largely vanish from view.
• The Act still gives real machinery: Sec. 32 police seizure, Sec. 34 customs hold, Sec. 35 District Court.
• Sec. 38 gives you three months from the day you learn of the infringement.

Is there any reported copyright case law in Nepal?

Barely. Searching the Supreme Court's Nepal Kanoon Patrika database by subject returns a handful of results for copyright infringement, against a substantial and well-known body of trademark judgments.

That gap is structural, not a sign that copying is rare here. It changes what a Nepali copyright owner should rely on, and this page is honest about it rather than filling the space with names we cannot check.

Which copyright decision can we actually verify?

One. Nepal Government v. Yadav Dawadi, reported at NKP 2066, Decision No. 8178, subject "copyright infringement", decided by a joint bench on 2066/04/25 BS.

We read that entry in the Supreme Court's own reporter database, not in a summary of it. The party names, the decision number and the subject line all match.

The prosecution concerned selling and renting copies of Nepali films and music without the owner's permission, charged under Sec. 25(1)(a) and Sec. 27 of the Act.

What did the Dawadi decision actually decide?

Not what you would expect. The reported reasoning is about time limits, and it is blunt: where the law fixes a period clearly, a court's own notice cannot shorten or lengthen it.

A party cannot lean on a wrongly-worded notice to escape the consequence of its own delay. The appeal had been filed out of time, and that was the end of it.

So Nepal's best-documented copyright decision is really a lesson about deadlines. Anyone reading it as authority on what counts as copying is reading the wrong case.

What about the other cases people cite?

Other Nepali copyright matters are described online and in law-firm publications. One frequently repeated example is a 2011 appellate decision about a photographer's images being reused with an organisation's logo pasted over them.

We could not confirm it in the official reporter, and we are not going to repeat a citation we cannot check. That is deliberate.

The reason is not that the account looks wrong. It is that the reporter publishes Supreme Court decisions, so an appellate ruling simply is not there to check against.

Why does Nepal have so few reported copyright judgments?

Four reasons stack up, and each removes cases before they reach print.

Most disputes settle. A takedown, a credit correction or a payment ends the matter, and a settlement produces no judgment.

Many are criminal. Sec. 37 makes offences under Sec. 27 and Sec. 28 state cases investigated by a police officer of at least inspector rank, and a criminal file rarely becomes a citable civil authority.

Most are heard low down. Sec. 35 sends these cases to the District Court under the Summary Procedures Act 1971, and district judgments are not systematically published.

And Sec. 38 is unforgiving: three months from knowledge. A claim that takes six months to organise is over before it starts.

How does this compare with trademark case law?

The contrast is stark, and it is worth understanding before you assume your copyright problem has precedent behind it.

Trademark disputes reach the Supreme Court because a registration is a valuable and transferable asset that is worth years of argument, whereas copyright arises automatically, is often worth less per dispute, and tends to settle quietly.

The trademark side also has a public paper trail that copyright simply does not have. A mark is filed in a NICE classification class, examined by the Department of Industry, published in the Industrial Property Bulletin, exposed to a 90-day opposition window, and then carries a seven-year renewal term that keeps the owner in contact with the office.

Every one of those stages produces a dated record that somebody can later point at in court. A song or a photograph passes through none of them, so when a copyright dispute starts there is often nothing official to anchor it to except the creator's own files.

If you want the register side of that table, our guide to copyright versus trademark in Nepal sets the two systems out side by side.

Does Nepal's Berne membership change any of this?

Nepal acceded to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, in the Paris Act of 1971, and it entered into force for Nepal on 11 January 2006, as the treaty record published by WIPO shows.

What that gives a Nepali author is protection in the other member countries without any formality there, and it gives foreign authors the same automatic protection here. It is a genuinely useful right, and it explains why a foreign publisher can complain about copying in Kathmandu.

What it does not give you is a forum. A Berne right is still enforced through Nepal's own courts under the Copyright Act 2002, on Nepal's own deadlines, so the thin case law problem described above applies to a foreign owner exactly as it applies to a local one.

Which office handles a copyright dispute?

The Registrar designated under Sec. 30 administers copyright. The Department of Industry does not: it handles patents, designs and trade marks.

Sending a copyright complaint to the wrong office costs weeks and tells the other side you are unprepared. It is the commonest procedural error in Nepali IP correspondence.

Sec. 31 gives thirty-five days to appeal a Registrar order or decision to the Appellate Court for the area where the Registrar's office sits.

How do you argue a case with no precedent to cite?

You argue from the statute and from the facts, which is what Nepali judges in this area have to work with anyway. A clean chain of ownership documents and an unedited capture of the use will carry far more weight than a citation to a decision that turned on something else entirely.

It also helps to be precise about which limb of Sec. 25 you say was breached, because the section lists specific acts rather than setting out a general prohibition on copying.

What does the Act give you instead of precedent?

A surprising amount, and it is all in Chapter 7. Thin case law does not mean weak machinery.

Sec. 32 lets police search for and seize infringing copies on a complaint, and the equipment used to make them can go too. Sec. 33 covers destruction of what the court holds liable to seizure.

Sec. 34 is the border provision. A Customs Officer may hold suspect imports for ten working days at a time, to a maximum of twenty, on an application with evidence, or on the officer's own suspicion.

Sec. 36 lets the District Court order the other side to stop the activity while the case runs.

Does registration change your position in a dispute?

It helps with proof, not with existence. Copyright arises on creation, and the Act does not make registration a condition of the right.

What a certificate does is shorten an argument about who made the work and when, which is exactly the argument a defendant will pick. Our guide to copyright registration in Nepal covers the practical side.

Note what the certificate cannot do: it will not make an unoriginal work protectable, and it does not affect the Sec. 38 clock.

What should you do in the first week?

1. Write down the date you found out. Sec. 38 counts from knowledge, so this date is the single most important fact in your file.
2. Prove the work is yours. Source files, drafts, the brief, the contract and the payment record.
3. Capture the use unedited. Full addresses, account names, dates and a saved copy, not a cropped screenshot.
4. Check what you already licensed. Read the permission you gave and see exactly where it stops.
5. Pick the route to your goal. Removal, credit, payment or a prosecution each point somewhere different.
6. Get advice before the notice goes out. A notice sent early warns the other side and proves nothing.

What would a realistic dispute look like?

A Kathmandu photographer licenses a set of images to an event company for one brochure. Eighteen months later the same images appear on a hoarding, cropped, with the company's logo across the corner.

The useful questions are narrow. When did the photographer actually learn of the hoarding? What did the original licence cover? Are the source files and the invoice still together in one place?

This is an illustration, not a real case. It is here because those three questions decide far more Nepali copyright matters than any judgment does.

Is pirated software treated the same way?

Yes. A computer program is a protected work, and unlicensed copying falls squarely inside Sec. 25(1)(a). There is no separate software statute.

Sec. 25(1)(e) and (g) reach further, to devices made to defeat copy protection and to equipment whose only object is infringement.

The evidence problem is different, though: licence keys, seat counts and install records matter more than visual comparison. Our software copyright guide goes into that.

Common mistakes

• Repeating a case name you found in a summary. Check it against the reporter, or say you could not.
• Treating credit as a licence. Attribution is not permission, and permission is not attribution.
• Counting three months from the harm. Sec. 38 counts from knowledge, which is usually much later.
• Taking a copyright claim to the Department of Industry. That is the trade mark office.
• Assuming a trademark judgment helps. Deceptive-similarity reasoning does not transfer to copying a work.
• Editing the screenshot. An altered capture damages the only evidence you controlled.

Where does IP Sewa fit?

Honestly: not in copyright. We are a Department of Industry practice, so our work is trademark registration, searches, renewals, patents, designs and opposition and enforcement on the register side.

If the thing being copied is a brand rather than a work, that is our ground, and you can search published marks in the Bulletin data yourself before you call anyone.

For a copyright claim, take it to a lawyer who does copyright. We would rather say that than sell you the wrong service.

In short

Nepal has one copyright decision we could verify in the official reporter, and it is about a missed deadline. The absence of a case bank is a reporting fact, not a licence to copy.

Work from the statute, not from precedent: know your Sec. 38 date, keep the ownership chain intact, and decide what outcome you actually want.

People also search for

• What the Copyright Act says about infringement
• Music copyright and royalties in Nepal
• Copyright for YouTubers and social-media creators
• Copyright for photographers and designers
• How long copyright lasts in Nepal
• What a copyright certificate proves
• Trademark, copyright, patent and design compared
• Copyright statistics for Nepal

The official text of Nepal's statutes is published by the Nepal Law Commission, and it is worth reading Chapter 7 before you act. If the copying involves a brand rather than a work, contact our team and we will tell you plainly whether it is ours to handle.