• 08 Aug, 2026
  • Updated 15 Oct, 2026
  • GI & Traditional Knowledge
  • IP Sewa Admin
  • 14 min read

Nepal has no new intellectual property Act. The law in force is still the Patent, Design and Trade Mark Act of 1965, amended in 1987 and again in 2006. A consolidating bill has been reported, but a reported bill is not law, and this page keeps the two apart.

Key takeaways

  • The Department of Industry registers industrial property under the 1965 Act, as it has since that Act replaced a 1936 law.
  • There is no "IP Act 2073". The 2073 instrument is a national policy, and the Department's own site files it that way.
  • A consolidating Industrial Property Bill has been reported; its contents and timing are not something to plan around.
  • The Act has already been substantially rewritten twice, which is the best guide to how reform actually arrives.
  • Nepal is outside the Madrid System, the Patent Cooperation Treaty and the Hague system.
  • Filing today under Sec. 18A and the NICE classification is not wasted work if the law later changes.
  • A registered mark carries a seven-year renewal term, and nothing proposed suspends that.

What law is actually in force in Nepal today?

One statute governs trade marks, patents and industrial designs: the Patent, Design and Trade Mark Act, authenticated on 30 August 1965. It is administered by the Department of Industry, which is both the registry and a quasi-judicial body for disputes under it.

The Department's own downloads page lists that Act among the laws it applies, alongside a set of other industrial statutes. Copyright sits outside it entirely, under a separate Act and a separate Registrar.

Everything a Nepali business can file today is filed under that 1965 text as amended. Nothing else is available to file under.

Is there an "IP Act 2073"?

No, and this is the single most repeated error about Nepali IP online. The 2073 instrument people mean is the National Intellectual Property Policy of that year.

A policy is a statement of government intent. It does not create a filing category, a right, a deadline or an office, and nothing in it can be enforced against a competitor.

The distinction is visible on the Department's own website, which lists the Patent, Design and Trade Mark Act under its Acts and the 2073 intellectual property instrument under its Policies. We checked both listings at the end of September 2026. You can see them at doind.gov.np.

Has a new IP bill been reported?

Yes, reported. A consolidating Industrial Property Bill has been described in ministry material and in the press, with accounts of a draft that lapsed and was later redrafted.

We are not going to summarise its provisions, because we cannot verify them against an enacted text, and a summary of a draft reads exactly like a statement of law once it is copied twice.

So treat any article that tells you what the new Act will require as reporting a proposal. Until a bill is passed and published, the safe planning assumption is the law you can read today.

How has this Act changed before?

Twice, and substantially, which is a far better guide than speculation. The consolidation carries amendment markers that let you attribute each provision.

The first amendment, on 18 October 1987, inserted almost the entire modern trade mark system: Sec. 7A, Sec. 18A, Sec. 18B, Sec. 18C, Sec. 18D, Sec. 21A, Sec. 21B, Sec. 21C, Sec. 21D, Sec. 23B and Sec. 26A, while repealing Sec. 21.

Before 1987 a registered Nepali mark had no statutory term, no classification, no publication, no objection window and no renewal procedure. Reform in Nepal has therefore already meant a wholesale rewrite rather than a tidy-up.

The second amendment, on 24 November 2006, added the examination and right-to-be-heard wording to Sec. 17(1) and Sec. 18(1), amended Sec. 16(2) and Sec. 21D, inserted the Paris Convention sentence into Sec. 21C, changed the Sec. 19 fine, and deleted Sec. 23 and Sec. 23A.

What has actually changed, and whenA timeline with five points. A patent, design and trademark law of 1936 is repealed by Section 28 of the current Act. The current Act is authenticated on 30 August 1965. The first amendment on 18 October 1987 inserts the modern trade mark system including classification, publication, objection and renewal. The second amendment on 24 November 2006 adds examination wording and the Paris Convention reference. A consolidating bill has been reported but is not law.Nepal has reformed this law twice alreadyBoth times by rewriting the Act, not by replacing it1936An earlier law,later repealed.1965The current Actis authenticated.1987The modern marksystem arrives.2006Examination andParis wording.NowA bill isreported.Before 1987: no fixed term.No classification, no publication, noobjection window and no renewal.Reform here is wholesale.The 1987 amendment inserted elevensections and repealed another.A reported bill has no date on this line.Plan against the text you can read, not against a draft.
Two real reforms, sixty years apart in a single statute. The fifth point is not a date yet.

How do you tell a real change from a rumour?

By asking what document you are being shown. An enacted Act is published and dated; a party list on a treaty site is published and dated; a policy is published and dated. A description of a draft is none of those things.

Every claim on this page that says "in force" can be traced to a text or a party list you can open yourself, and every claim that says "reported" deliberately cannot.

In force, and merely reportedTwo cards. The in-force card lists the Patent, Design and Trade Mark Act of 1965 as amended in 1987 and 2006, the Department of Industry as registrar, one class per application, publication in the Industrial Property Bulletin followed by an objection window, a seven-year renewal term, and Paris Convention membership. The reported card lists a consolidating Industrial Property Bill with no enacted text, no confirmed provisions, no passage date, no Madrid accession and no online filing system.Keep these two columns apartMost bad advice about Nepali IP mixes them into one listIn force todayThe 1965 Act, as amended.Department of Industry.One class per filing.Bulletin, then objection.A seven-year renewal term.Paris Convention applies.A 2073 policy, not an Act.You can read all of it.Only reportedA consolidating bill.No enacted text to read.No confirmed provisions.No passage date.No Madrid accession.No online filing system.No new filing categories.Nothing here is plannable.
If a statement belongs in the amber column, it does not belong in a filing decision.

What is genuinely missing from the current Act?

This is the useful question, because a gap in the text today is a fact rather than a prediction. Several of them are counted rather than argued.

The Act has no geographical indication provision, no collective mark and no certification mark. The words collective, geographical, indication and quality do not appear in it at all. The separate Nepal Standards (Certification Mark) Act runs the NS quality mark as a standards scheme, not as a filing category here.

It has no border measures either. Customs, border, seizure and counterfeit each appear zero times, and enforcement runs instead through the Department's own power under Sec. 19 to fine and to confiscate the goods connected with the offence.

It has no multi-class application. Sec. 18A works class by class, so a brand covering goods and services needs more than one filing.

Which treaties is Nepal in, and which not?

Nepal is a member of WIPO, with the convention in force for it since 4 February 1997. It acceded to the Paris Convention in its Stockholm Act, in force 22 June 2001, and to the Berne Convention in its Paris Act, in force 11 January 2006. It signed the Marrakesh treaty in 2013 without ratifying it.

It is not in the Madrid System for trade marks, not in the Patent Cooperation Treaty, and not in the Hague system for designs. We read each of those party lists on the WIPO site and Nepal appears on none of them.

That is why an international registration does not reach Nepal, and why a foreign owner still needs a direct national filing here. A Paris Convention priority claim is available where its requirements are met.

What would change, and what would not?

QuestionToday, in forceIf a new Act passed
Who registersDepartment of Industry.Unlikely to move.
Who gets priorityEarliest complete filing.Filing date still counts.
ClassesOne class per application, Sec. 18A.Could be consolidated.
Your existing registrationValid, with a renewal term.Transitional rules would apply.
Madrid filingNot available.Would need accession, separately.
CopyrightA different Act entirely.Not part of this bill's remit.

Read the last column as conditional in every row. None of it is a commitment by anybody, and the transitional treatment of existing rights is exactly the sort of thing only an enacted text can settle.

Should you wait for the new law before filing?

No, and the reason is structural rather than rhetorical. Nepal awards rights on the filing date, so waiting transfers your position to whoever files while you wait.

When the Act was last rewritten in 1987, Sec. 26 treated earlier registrations as registered under the new scheme, and Sec. 28 dealt with the repealed 1936 law in the same breath. A consolidating Act would face the same problem and would have to answer it somehow.

A filing made today is therefore an asset in a transition, not a liability. Our guide to registering a trademark in Nepal covers the route as it stands, and searching for a trademark in Nepal covers the step before it.

File now, or wait?A decision tree. The question is whether the brand or invention is already in use or about to launch. If it is, file now, because rights run from the filing date and a competitor filing first takes the position. If it is not, prepare the search and the class analysis so the filing can be made the moment it is needed. In neither branch does waiting for a reported bill improve the position.Neither branch says waitA reported bill does not hold your filing date openIs the brand in use now,or launching soon?YesNoFile nowRights run from thefiling date, and arival can take it.Prepare nowDo the search andthe class work, sofiling is one step.Waiting is not a third option.It only moves the date, never the risk.
The same answer from both directions, which is usually a sign the question was the wrong one.

What should a business do under the present law?

  1. Search before you commit. Check the published record for close marks in the classes you care about.
  2. Decide the classes honestly. Cover what you sell now and what you have concrete plans to sell.
  3. File the wordmark first where the name is the asset. Customers say and type the name, not the logo.
  4. Answer examination properly. Sec. 18(1) contemplates a hearing, so a considered reply is worth making.
  5. Watch publication. The opposition window after Bulletin publication is the cheapest moment to stop a confusingly similar mark.
  6. Diary the renewal. Sec. 23B allows renewal within 35 days of expiry, with a late window before cancellation.

How do the three rights differ right now?

A trade mark registered under Sec. 18 runs seven years under Sec. 18D and can be renewed in further seven-year terms without limit.

A patent runs seven years under Sec. 8 and may be renewed not more than twice, which caps it at twenty-one years. A design runs five years under Sec. 14A and is likewise renewable not more than twice.

The objection windows differ too: 90 days after Bulletin publication for a trade mark in current practice, and 35 days for designs under Sec. 21A. For patents Sec. 7A(3) counts 35 days from seeing or copying the published patent instead.

Six things reform does not changeA checklist of six items. Searching the published record before committing to a name. Choosing NICE classes that match what is actually sold. Filing early, because rights run from the filing date. Keeping the ownership and authority documents in order. Diarising the renewal date. And keeping the evidence of use that supports any later dispute.Six things no draft bill changesEvery one of these is worth doing this quarterSearch the published record before you commit to a name.Pick classes that match what you actually sell today.File early. The date decides competing claims here.Keep the authority and ownership documents in order.Diarise the renewal. Sec. 23B is unforgiving about it.Keep dated evidence of how the brand is really used.
The amber rows are the two that businesses only think about once something has gone wrong.

Will filing move online?

It has not yet. There is no public online application-status tracker at the Department, and no online filing portal for industrial property, as far as we can find. Our note on registering a trademark online in Nepal sets out what the current position really is.

Digital administration is the kind of thing that changes without any new Act at all, because it is procedure rather than substance. That cuts both ways: it could arrive sooner than legislation, and it could arrive without anybody announcing it as reform.

None of it changes the rule that decides most disputes: whoever filed first still holds the better position, on paper or through a browser.

What does this look like for one business?

A Butwal food producer has been selling under one name for three years and has heard that a new IP law is coming. It decides to wait until the rules are clearer.

Meanwhile a distributor files the same name in the relevant class. Nothing about a reported bill helps the producer, because the right that matters attaches to the earlier application under the Act in force.

This is an illustration, not a real case. The point is that reform risk and filing risk run in opposite directions, and only one of them is under your control.

Common mistakes

  • Citing an "IP Act 2073". There is none. The 2073 instrument is a policy, filed as one by the Department.
  • Quoting a draft bill's provisions as law. A redrafted bill can change in any direction before passage.
  • Assuming an international registration reaches Nepal. No Madrid membership means no automatic effect here.
  • Treating company registration as a mark. The Company Registrar registers names, not trade mark rights.
  • Waiting for online filing. Procedure may modernise; the filing-date rule will not change in your favour.
  • Expecting a certification or collective mark. The trade mark law has no such category to file in.

Where does IP Sewa fit?

We work under the law in force. That means trademark registration and renewals, patent filings and industrial design filings at the Department, plus opposition work when a conflict is published.

You can search published marks in our Bulletin data before you speak to anyone, and check likely classes with the NICE class finder.

What we will not do is tell you what a bill says. When there is an enacted text to read, this page will say so.

In short

The 1965 Act, twice amended, is the whole of Nepal's industrial property law today, and a reported bill changes nothing about what you can file or when you should file it.

Judge any claim about the future of this subject by one test: can you point at an enacted text, or a party list, or a published policy? If not, it is a forecast.

People also search for

The consolidated Act, with its amendment markers, is published by the Nepal Law Commission and is worth reading once in full. If you want to know how a change would affect a mark you already hold, contact our team and we will answer from the text rather than from the headlines.

#nepal#intellectual property#ip law#reform#future
Share