Relief To Quick Delivery Platform 'Zepto': Delhi High Court Directs Cancellation Of Trademark Registered By Individual In 2014

Kiranakart Technologies (petitioner) sought cancellation of the impugned mark in class 35 category against respondent no. 1. Class 35 category relates to advertising, export & import, wholesale & retail outlets and shops including mobile phones, its parts and accessions, wifi routers and technical consultancy.

Kiranakart stated that it began its business under the ZEPTO marks in July 2021. It stated that it has approximately 350 stores/ delivery hubs, 1000+ employees, 40000+ delivery executives and currently has a presence in over 10 cities across India.

Kiranakart stated that over 8 million customers have placed orders on its platform and that in 2023-24, its turnover was approximately Rs. 4252 crores. It submiited that it has widely advertised and promoted the ZEPTO marks by way of print, television, digital, outdoor campaigns and sponsoring events.

It stated that respondent no. 1 registered the mark ZEPTO with effect from 2014 in class 35 category, however never made use of the mark. As respondent no.1 filed an opposition against Kiranakart trade mark application for the ZEPTO mark in class 35 category, it filed the present rectification petition.

Kiranakart submitted that owing to its continuous and extensive use and pan-India promotion and advertisement activities, the ZEPTO marks are exclusively associated with it.

It argued that respondent no.1 has no bona fide intention to use the impugned mark in relation to class 35 category. It stated that despite no active commercial use of the impugned mark by respondent no.1, he filed a vexatious opposition against its application for the Zepto mark.

Noting that respondent no.1 did not file any reply to the petition, Justice Amit Bansal said that it indicated that there was nothing substantial to put forth on merits.

The Court observed that Kiranakart has been continuously and extensively using the ZEPTO marks since July 2021. It stated that by virtue of their widespread advertisement and promotion, it has acquired immense goodwill and reputation.

The Court noted respondent no.1 has not made any use of the impugned mark for services in class 35. It noted that Kiranakart filed an affidavit of the authorized representative of an independent investigating agency to support its averments with regard to non-use of the impugned mark by the respondent no.1 for nearly 8 years up to the date of filing of the present petition.

It referred to Section 47(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act provides that a registered trade mark may be taken off the Register of Trade Marks if the same is not used in relation to those goods or services in respect of which it is registered for a continuous period of at least 5 years from the date on which the mark is entered in the Register of Trade Marks.

It further relied on Russell Corp Australia Pty Ltd. vs. Shri Ashok Mahajan (2023), where the Supreme Court observed that a trademark would be liable to be removed for non-use unless such non-use is explained by way of special circumstances.

Considering the facts of the case, the Court was of the view that the impugned mark was liable to be removed as a trademark.

The Court thus directed the Trade Marks Registry to remove the Zepto mark in class 35 in the name of respondent no.1 from the Register of Trade Marks.

Case title: Kiranakart Technologies Private Limited vs. Mohammad Arshad & Anr (C.O.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 297