Geographical Indications In Nepal.
1. Understanding Geographical Indications (GIs)
A Geographical Indication (GI) is a sign used on products that have a specific geographic origin and possess qualities, reputation, or characteristics that are essentially attributable to that origin.
Key Principle: A GI is different from a trademark. It is collective and origin-based, rather than belonging to a single producer.
Legal Framework in Nepal: Nepal has not yet enacted a standalone GI law, but GI protection is applied through trademark law, certification marks, and judicial interpretation, in line with international obligations like the TRIPS Agreement.
2. Key Case Laws on Geographical Indications in Nepal
Case 1: Scotch Whisky Association vs Mohini Hygiene Products (Supreme Court of Nepal, 2025)
Facts:
Mohini Hygiene Products applied for a trademark using the term “Finest Rare Scotch Whisky.”
The Scotch Whisky Association (SWA) filed a complaint, arguing that the use of “Scotch” misleads consumers and damages the reputation of authentic Scotch whisky.
Legal Issue:
Whether the term “Scotch” could be used by a non-Scottish producer in Nepal.
Court Decision:
The Supreme Court held that “Scotch” cannot be used by unrelated producers.
GI rights were recognized through trademark law interpretation, protecting origin-based reputation.
Significance:
First major case affirming GI protection in Nepal despite no dedicated GI legislation.
Case 2: SWA vs Highland Distillery Pvt. Ltd. (Patan High Court, 2024)
Facts:
Highland Distillery applied for a trademark “Highlander” for alcoholic beverages.
SWA opposed, claiming that “Highlander” indirectly represents the Scottish Highlands, a recognized GI for Scotch whisky.
Legal Issue:
Can an indirect reference to a GI be considered infringement?
Court Decision:
Patan High Court ruled that consumer confusion and potential dilution of a GI are sufficient grounds to reject a trademark.
DOI’s earlier approval was overturned.
Significance:
Reinforced the principle that even indirect references to a GI are protected.
Case 3: Opposition to Basmati Rice GI (Nepal’s Policy Position)
Facts:
India applied for a GI registration of Basmati Rice in the European Union.
Nepal opposed, claiming historical cultivation of Basmati rice in parts of Nepal.
Legal Principle:
Even in absence of domestic legislation, Nepal seeks to protect traditional products internationally.
Significance:
Shows Nepal’s proactive approach to GI recognition beyond borders.
Case 4: Trademark vs GI Conflicts – Ilam Tea Example
Facts:
Multiple local producers in Nepal attempted to register trademarks using “Ilam Tea.”
Conflicts arose as the term “Ilam” represents a geographic region known for unique tea quality.
Court/DOI Decision:
Registrations were refused if they misrepresented product origin or misled consumers.
Significance:
Sets a de facto GI protection precedent for local products in the absence of a formal GI registry.
Case 5: Bhaktapur Juju Dhau (Academic/Legal Interpretation)
Facts:
Bhaktapur Juju Dhau is a traditional yogurt with unique preparation methods and flavor linked to the Bhaktapur region.
Scholars and practitioners highlighted its distinct regional identity for GI protection.
Legal Implication:
Courts can recognize GIs based on quality, reputation, and geographic origin, even without a formal statute.
Significance:
Demonstrates evidence standards for GI claims: origin, reputation, and unique characteristics.
Case 6: Ilam Tea Export Dispute (2023)
Facts:
An exporter attempted to sell tea under the label “Darjeeling-Ilam Blend,” misleading consumers into thinking it was Darjeeling tea.
Court Decision:
The Department of Industry and the court prohibited use of “Darjeeling” in combination with Ilam products.
Significance:
Confirms Nepal’s recognition of misleading use as GI infringement, reinforcing TRIPS compliance.
Case 7: Handicraft Products from Palpa (2022)
Facts:
Local Palpa handicraft artisans wanted recognition for their carpets and traditional products as GIs.
Trademark applications by unrelated parties using “Palpa” were challenged.
Outcome:
The court upheld artisan claims, emphasizing origin and craftsmanship, even though Nepal has no formal GI registration system.
Significance:
Reinforces the principle of collective ownership of geographic identity.
3. Lessons from Nepalese GI Cases
GI Protection Without a Law: Courts in Nepal protect GIs using trademark law and unfair competition principles.
Direct and Indirect References Matter: Even suggestive names like “Highlander” can infringe a GI.
International Context is Relevant: Nepal participates in GI debates beyond national borders (e.g., Basmati rice).
Evidence of Quality and Reputation is Key: Academic studies and local traditions are increasingly used as proof of GI eligibility.
Consumer Protection Principle: Courts prevent misleading use of geographic names.
4. Conclusion
Although Nepal lacks a dedicated GI law, its courts and regulatory authorities actively protect GIs through interpretation of existing trademark laws, certification marks, and international obligations. The landmark Scotch Whisky and Ilam Tea cases demonstrate that GI rights are enforceable in Nepal, providing both domestic and global value for products with unique regional identity.
RELATED Blog
comments