With many Nepali businesses failing to respond adequately to trademark infringement complaints filed by multinational companies, the government has formally issued notices demanding written clarification supported by evidence.

On Wednesday, the Department of Industry, which functions as a quasi-judicial body overseeing industrial property protection, dispute resolution and administrative procedures, published a list of 11 Nepali companies accused of violating trademark rules.

According to the notice, Turner Entertainment Co, US, has filed a case against Naulo Foods Industries in Bharatpur, Chitwan, for copying the logo of its product “Kingcorn Lottery”. The company has also lodged a complaint against Pabitra Laxmi Food Products in Balkot, Bhaktapur, for imitating the logo of its product “Jerry Cone”.

Energy Brands Inc, US, has filed a complaint against Aqua Nepal Bisleri in Rupandehi over alleged infringement of the logo used in its product “ANBS Good Drinks”.

Similarly, Coca-Cola Company, US, has filed a trademark infringement case against Manohara Food and Beverage in Kageshwari, Kathmandu, accusing it of using a similar logo for its product “DG Smart H2O”.

Trek Bicycle Corporation, US, has filed a case against Turbo Trek in Birgunj, Parsa, over the use of a confusingly similar brand name and logo.

Likewise, Hugo Boss Trademark Management GmbH and Co. KG, Germany, has filed a complaint against Imaanur Fashion Ware Industries in Jhapa for allegedly copying its logo in a product branded “Bass”.

Zoom Communications, Inc, US, has filed a case against Kaveesh Marketing in Birtamod, Jhapa, for using a similar logo under the name “Kaveesh Zoom Cosmetic”.

Kathmandu Limited, New Zealand, has accused Om Mangalakali Textile Udyog in Kathmandu of trademark infringement for its product “The Own Kathmandu”.

Coca-Cola Company has also filed another case against Pathivara Food and Packaging Udhyog in Jhapa for copying its branding through labels such as “Cool Cola” and “Super Fantastic”.

“If the companies do not respond even after the notice is published, we will proceed with hearings and take decisions accordingly,” said Shree Krishna Poudel, undersecretary at the Law Section of the Department of Industry.

“Most of the cases listed in the notice are old, while a few are new. The majority are related to trademark infringement.”

Officials say delays in adjudication have been a persistent problem. Some of Coca-Cola’s cases have been pending for years, yet no final decision has been reached.

“It takes years to conclude such cases as the director general has to make both administrative and legal decisions,” said Poudel. “Due to a heavy administrative workload, there is little time to focus on legal proceedings.”

As a result, cases have been piling up, making timely resolution increasingly difficult.

The government has expressed growing concern over the rising number of trademark violations. The Industrial Property Rights Bill 2025, which aims to strengthen enforcement, was tabled in the National Assembly in June last year. However, progress stalled after the House of Representatives was dissolved following the Gen Z movement last September.

Poudel said the bill will be resubmitted once the parliamentary process resumes.

Data from the department show that 356 cases—mostly related to trademark infringement—were registered in the last fiscal year, while 483 cases were resolved. In the first eight months of the current fiscal year, 382 cases have been registered, but only 178 have been settled.

The figures indicate a growing backlog, with new cases rising faster than they are being resolved.

Trademark infringement remains widespread in Nepal’s market. Global brands are frequently mimicked through lookalike products—Coca-Cola has faced imitations like “Club-Cola”, while Mountain Dew is mirrored by “Maintain Dew”. Kentucky Friend Chicken (KFC) has its local counterpart, “KKFC”, and confectionery brands such as Centre Fruit and Centre Fillz are widely copied. Even major global labels like Adidas and Nike are commonly counterfeited and openly sold in shops.

A notable case involved Kansai Nerolac Paints, an Indian subsidiary of Japan’s Kansai Paints, which was barred from entering the Nepali market for years after a local firm registered the “Nerolac” trademark. In 2020, following a six-year legal battle, Kansai Nerolac Paints Nepal won its dispute against Rukmini Chemical Industries.

In another case, KFC earlier this year won a trademark dispute against a local brand, Krispy Krunchy Fried Chicken (KKFC), with the department ordering the imitation business to cease operations under its existing name after a seven-year legal fight.

The proposed Industrial Property Rights Bill 2025 envisions establishing a dedicated office to oversee intellectual property matters, including patents, trademarks and industrial designs.

The bill also proposes stricter penalties, with fines of up to Rs1.5 million—15 times higher than the current maximum of Rs100,000. However, it does not include provisions for imprisonment, as intellectual property violations fall under industrial rather than criminal law.

If enacted, the legislation will replace the outdated Patent, Design, and Trademark Act of 1965. Although the draft was prepared by the Ministry of Industry, Commerce, and Supplies in 2019, its progress was delayed by the Covid pandemic and subsequent political instability.

Experts say brand infringement can severely harm legitimate businesses. Lookalike products often confuse consumers, leading to lost sales and reputational damage. These imitation goods typically replicate packaging, logos and slogans, making them difficult to distinguish from genuine products.

Consumer awareness also remains low. Many buyers struggle to differentiate between authentic and counterfeit goods, while lower prices make fake products attractive to cost-conscious consumers. This demand continues to fuel the counterfeit supply chain.

Compounding the problem, many producers of counterfeit goods operate without proper registration, limiting regulatory oversight and encouraging unethical practices. In some cases, substandard imitation products—particularly food and cosmetics—may also pose health risks.