Delhi High Court Rules in Favour of Zepto in Trademark Infringement Case

Delhi High Court Rules in Favour of Zepto in Trademark Infringement Case. In a significant development in Indian trademark jurisprudence, the Delhi High Court recently ruled in favor of Zepto’s parent company in a trademark infringement case. This ruling not only protects the growing brand but also reiterates a crucial principle of trademark law use it or lose it.
Background of the Case
Zepto, a fast-growing quick-commerce startup, has become a well-known name in the Indian e-commerce ecosystem. However, it recently found itself entangled in a trademark dispute where another entity claimed prior rights over the "Zepto" mark. This opposing party had registered the trademark way back in 2014, long before the rise of Zepto as a popular brand.
Interestingly, despite holding the trademark, the original registrant failed to use the trademark in commerce for several years. It was only after Zepto became a household name that the entity approached the company to negotiate—likely seeking financial gain or control over the brand name.
Legal Grounds for the Judgment
The Delhi High Court evaluated the case under Section 47(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which provides that a registered trademark may be removed from the register if:
"Up to a date three months before the date of the application, a continuous period of five years or longer has elapsed during which the trademark was registered and during which there was no bona fide use of the trademark in relation to the goods or services for which it was registered."
The Court found clear evidence that the trademark had not been in bona fide commercial use for over five years. The party’s sudden interest in negotiating with Zepto appeared opportunistic rather than genuine.
As a result, the Court cancelled the registered trademark under Section 47(1)(b), ruling in Zepto’s favor.
Why This Case Matters
This judgment sends a strong signal to trademark holders and aspiring entrepreneurs alike: merely registering a trademark is not enough to maintain rights over it. Genuine, continuous, and commercial use is essential to retain protection under the Trade Marks Act.
Here’s why this ruling is important:
1. Discourages Trademark Squatting: It addresses the practice of hoarding trademarks with no intention of real use, only to later exploit them when another party gains popularity using a similar mark.
2. Promotes Fair Competition: It allows actively used trademarks to flourish without being threatened by inactive registrations.
3. Clarifies Legal Precedents: The case strengthens the enforcement of Section 47(1)(b) and establishes a clearer understanding of non-use provisions.
Implications for Businesses and Brand Owners
• Timely Commercial Use is Crucial: Registering a trademark without using it commercially offers no long-term advantage. The law requires that trademarks must be put to genuine use to enjoy continued protection.
• Maintain Usage Records: Always keep a proper record of when and how your trademark is being used — through invoices, marketing materials, packaging, online platforms, etc.
• Be Vigilant of Similar Marks: Regularly monitor the trademark registry and market for potentially conflicting marks and take timely legal action if necessary.
• Defend Actively Used Brands: If your brand gains popularity, you must be ready to defend it against frivolous claims based on old or dormant registrations.
Expert Insight: What Section 47(1)(b) Truly Means
This case shines light on a lesser-known yet powerful provision under the Trade Marks Act. Section 47(1)(b) ensures that the register remains clean and is not cluttered with unused or dormant marks. It empowers the courts and trademark registry to weed out inactive trademarks and give space to active brands that are contributing to the market.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s judgment in favor of Zepto is not just a legal win for the startup, but also a landmark reminder of the importance of genuine use in trademark law. It brings clarity to the non-use cancellation process and reaffirms that trademark rights are not perpetual by default—they are maintained through active engagement in the marketplace.

In a significant development in Indian trademark jurisprudence, the Delhi High Court recently ruled in favor of Zepto’s parent company in a trademark infringement case. This ruling not only protects the growing brand but also reiterates a crucial principle of trademark law use it or lose it.

Background of the Case

Zepto, a fast-growing quick-commerce startup, has become a well-known name in the Indian e-commerce ecosystem. However, it recently found itself entangled in a trademark dispute where another entity claimed prior rights over the "Zepto" mark. This opposing party had registered the trademark way back in 2014, long before the rise of Zepto as a popular brand.

Interestingly, despite holding the trademark, the original registrant failed to use the trademark in commerce for several years. It was only after Zepto became a household name that the entity approached the company to negotiate—likely seeking financial gain or control over the brand name.

Legal Grounds for the Judgment

The Delhi High Court evaluated the case under Section 47(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which provides that a registered trademark may be removed from the register if:

"Up to a date three months before the date of the application, a continuous period of five years or longer has elapsed during which the trademark was registered and during which there was no bona fide use of the trademark in relation to the goods or services for which it was registered."

The Court found clear evidence that the trademark had not been in bona fide commercial use for over five years. The party’s sudden interest in negotiating with Zepto appeared opportunistic rather than genuine.

As a result, the Court cancelled the registered trademark under Section 47(1)(b), ruling in Zepto’s favor.

Why This Case Matters

This judgment sends a strong signal to trademark holders and aspiring entrepreneurs alike: merely registering a trademark is not enough to maintain rights over it. Genuine, continuous, and commercial use is essential to retain protection under the Trade Marks Act.

Here’s why this ruling is important:

1. Discourages Trademark Squatting: It addresses the practice of hoarding trademarks with no intention of real use, only to later exploit them when another party gains popularity using a similar mark.

2. Promotes Fair Competition: It allows actively used trademarks to flourish without being threatened by inactive registrations.

3. Clarifies Legal Precedents: The case strengthens the enforcement of Section 47(1)(b) and establishes a clearer understanding of non-use provisions.

Implications for Businesses and Brand Owners

• Timely Commercial Use is Crucial: Registering a trademark without using it commercially offers no long-term advantage. The law requires that trademarks must be put to genuine use to enjoy continued protection.

• Maintain Usage Records: Always keep a proper record of when and how your trademark is being used — through invoices, marketing materials, packaging, online platforms, etc.

• Be Vigilant of Similar Marks: Regularly monitor the trademark registry and market for potentially conflicting marks and take timely legal action if necessary.

• Defend Actively Used Brands: If your brand gains popularity, you must be ready to defend it against frivolous claims based on old or dormant registrations.

Expert Insight: What Section 47(1)(b) Truly Means

This case shines light on a lesser-known yet powerful provision under the Trade Marks Act. Section 47(1)(b) ensures that the register remains clean and is not cluttered with unused or dormant marks. It empowers the courts and trademark registry to weed out inactive trademarks and give space to active brands that are contributing to the market.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s judgment in favor of Zepto is not just a legal win for the startup, but also a landmark reminder of the importance of genuine use in trademark law. It brings clarity to the non-use cancellation process and reaffirms that trademark rights are not perpetual by default—they are maintained through active engagement in the marketplace.