Trade Dress Protection Under Nepal Law.
1. Legal Basis for Trade Dress Protection in Nepal
Nepal does not have a formal statutory category called “trade dress” like in U.S. law. However, trade dress is indirectly protected under the Patent, Design and Trade-Mark Act, 1965 (PDTA). Key points:
A trademark is defined as any word, symbol, picture, or combination used to distinguish goods or services.
Visual appearance of goods or packaging that can confuse consumers may fall under trademark protection, even if the term “trade dress” is not explicitly mentioned.
Protection is typically sought through principles of deceptive similarity, passing off, and reputation.
Principles Applied by Courts:
Distinctiveness – Packaging or design must help consumers identify the source of goods.
Likelihood of Confusion – Courts examine whether the look of one product may cause consumers to mistake it for another.
Goodwill & Passing Off – Even unregistered marks or packaging may be protected if they have established recognition.
Bad Faith & First-to-File – While registration is generally first-to-file, courts may cancel registrations obtained in bad faith or which deceive consumers.
2. Case Laws Illustrating Trade Dress Protection
Case 1: Nerolac Paints Ltd. vs. Rukmini Chemical Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Facts: Nerolac Paints sought to enter Nepal, but a local company had registered a similar mark “RCI NEROLAC.”
Issue: Whether registration of a deceptively similar mark should be allowed.
Ruling: The Supreme Court held that registration of a mark likely to confuse consumers is invalid, especially if obtained in bad faith.
Trade Dress Insight: Courts consider the overall impression and potential consumer confusion, not just literal words.
Case 2: Guinness United Distillers vs. Sandeep Industries
Facts: Guinness’ “GORDON’S” brand faced conflict with a Nepalese company using “CORDON.”
Issue: Whether registration of a confusingly similar mark should be allowed.
Ruling: Courts ruled that marks causing confusion or harming reputation of established brands can be challenged and possibly canceled.
Trade Dress Insight: Visual and phonetic similarity is considered, akin to trade dress assessment.
Case 3: Perefetti Van Melle S.P.A. vs. Perfect Foods Pvt. Ltd. (Center Fruit vs. Perfect Center Fillz)
Facts: “Center Fruit” gum had a competitor called “Perfect Center Fillz” with similar packaging and name.
Issue: Whether similarity in packaging and name constitutes infringement.
Ruling: The Supreme Court canceled the registration of “Perfect Center Fillz” due to likelihood of consumer confusion.
Trade Dress Insight: Visual appearance of packaging and phonetic similarity were crucial factors.
Case 4: Sun Fitting Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sandeep Industries
Facts: Both a Nepali and Indian company sought to register “SUN” as a mark; the Indian company had long-standing reputation.
Issue: Should registration consider reputation, or just first-to-file?
Ruling: Registration must consider reputation and distinctiveness; marks that harm established goodwill can be challenged.
Trade Dress Insight: Courts recognize the importance of overall consumer perception, not just textual registration.
Case 5: Gold Star Brand Dispute
Facts: Local company used marks similar to “Gold Star,” “Super Star,” and “Seven Star.”
Issue: Whether phonetic and visual similarities constitute deceptive registration.
Ruling: Supreme Court reaffirmed that marks must be distinctive; confusing similarities can result in cancellation of registrations.
Trade Dress Insight: The court looked at overall presentation and consumer perception, aligning with trade dress principles.
3. Key Takeaways on Trade Dress in Nepal
| Aspect | Position in Nepal |
|---|---|
| Formal category | No explicit “trade dress” category; protection via trademark law. |
| Basis of protection | Distinctiveness, likelihood of confusion, passing off, reputation. |
| Packaging & design | Protected if it can mislead consumers or establish brand identity. |
| Enforcement | Department of Industry handles initial disputes; appeals go to courts, including Supreme Court. |
| International brands | Courts may consider global reputation under Paris Convention principles. |
4. Conclusion
Nepal protects trade dress functionally, even without explicit statutory recognition. Courts examine visual appearance, packaging, name similarity, and phonetic resemblance to prevent consumer confusion and protect brand identity. Principles like distinctiveness, passing off, and deceptive similarity are applied, making trade dress protection effective in practice.
RELATED Blog
comments