Industry Department Grants HiLife the Rights to Use ‘Kurumu Kurum’ Brand on Chewing Tobacco

The Industry Department has resolved the trademark dispute between HiLife and Sixvilla by awarding the rights to use the ‘Kurumu Kurum’ brand on chewing tobacco to HiLife. The department canceled the registration of Sixvilla Pvt. Ltd. and deemed HiLife’s brand original and established in the market. This decision underscores the importance of intellectual property protection and safeguarding consumer interests. Kathmandu, 6 Baisakh.

HiLife has been granted the rights to print the ‘Kurumu Kurum’ brand on chewing tobacco. The Industry Department ruled in favor of HiLife in the trademark dispute between HiLife and Sixvilla, affirming that the rights to the Kurumu Kurum brand belong to HiLife. This decision came after a long-standing dispute between Nepal Everest Food & Snacks Pvt. Ltd., which produces HiLife products, and Sixvilla Pvt. Ltd., with the department ultimately canceling Sixvilla’s registration.

The department reached its conclusion after reviewing evidence, arguments, and Supreme Court precedents presented by both parties, confirming that the rights to the ‘Kurumu Kurum’ brand on chewing tobacco belong to HiLife. The dispute centered on Nepal Everest Food & Snacks Pvt. Ltd.’s use of the ‘HiLife’ trademark, associated labels, design, color combinations, and overall presentation. The complainant accused Sixvilla Pvt. Ltd. of using a very similar mark in appearance, structure, and presentation.

Upon examining the claims, submitted documents, and visual evidence from both parties, the Industry Department concluded that the trademark registered by Sixvilla is strikingly similar to HiLife’s. Notably, the department highlighted significant similarities in label design, color combinations, typography, product presentation, and overall outward appearance. The decision emphasized, “The main characteristic of a trademark is distinct identity. If a mark cannot establish a distinct identity in the market or resembles a previously established mark, it cannot be considered valid.”