In a monumental victory for intellectual property rights, Nepal’s Supreme Court has concluded an eight-year legal battle by ruling in favor of the Scotch Whisky Association (SWA). The decision, which protects the geographical indication (GI) of Scotch whisky, sets a crucial precedent for brand protection and aligns Nepal with international trade standards.
The case began on October 18, 2017, when the SWA filed a complaint against Mohini Hygiene Products. The defendant had applied for a trademark, "VISION," for a product that included the phrase "Finest Rare Scotch Whisky." The SWA argued that this wording would mislead consumers into believing the product was authentic Scotch whisky, thereby harming the reputation and integrity of a globally recognized GI.
The legal process unfolded in three stages:
The Department of Industry (2017): The Department of Industry (DOI) sided with the SWA, ruling that Mohini Hygiene Products could not use the term "Scotch." The DOI went a step further, deciding to reject all future trademark applications containing the words "Scotch" or "Scottish" to prevent similar disputes and consumer confusion.
The High Court (2018): Mohini Hygiene Products appealed the decision, but the High Court upheld the DOI's ruling. The court found the appeal invalid, reinforcing the argument that the terms "Scotch" and "Scottish" are unequivocally associated with Scotland.
The Supreme Court (2025): The defendant then took the case to the Supreme Court. After a protracted eight-year legal battle, the court delivered its final verdict on August 19, 2025, upholding the decisions of the lower courts and affirming the protection of Scotch whisky as a geographical indication.
The case revolved around a fundamental distinction between a geographical indication (GI) and a trademark. While a trademark, like the "VISION" name, is a brand identifier for a specific company's goods or services, a GI, such as "Scotch Whisky," is a collective right that links a product's unique qualities to its specific geographical origin.
The SWA's arguments were rooted in international law, specifically Article 22 and 23 of the TRIPS Agreement (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) and Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention. As a member of the WTO, Nepal is obligated to enforce these agreements, which mandate the protection of GIs to prevent unfair competition and misleading the public.
The Supreme Court's decision acknowledged these international obligations. It explicitly stated that the use of "Scotch" and "Scottish" would create consumer confusion and damage the reputation of Scotch whisky. The court's verdict also highlighted the importance of protecting the integrity of GIs, not just as a matter of brand protection, but as a way to safeguard consumer trust and the economic value of products tied to their origin.
The Supreme Court's ruling is a landmark decision with far-reaching implications for Nepal. It sets a clear precedent for the handling of geographical indications within the country's legal system, even in the absence of a specific sui generis(specialized) GI law. The decision demonstrates that Nepal is committed to adhering to international intellectual property standards, a crucial factor for attracting foreign investment and participating in global trade.
This case not only secures the protection of Scotch whisky in the Nepali market but also underscores the importance of intellectual property for local producers.
While the full text of the Supreme Court's decision has yet to be published, this victory for the Scotch Whisky Association sends a powerful message: geographical indications are a protected right, and their integrity must be upheld to ensure fair trade and consumer protection.