Time For Zepto To Go?: Delhi High Court Orders Cancellation

In the case of Kiranakart Technologies (P) Ltd. v. Mohd. Arshad, the Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Kiranakart Technologies, the operator of the quick-commerce app Zepto, ordering the cancellation of the 'ZEPTO' trademark registered in favor of Mohammad Arshad. The Court determined that Kiranakart had extensively used and promoted the 'ZEPTO' mark since 2021, while Arshad had failed to make any genuine use of the mark for nearly 8 years since its registration in 2014, rendering the trademark a mere "block" on the Register of Trade Marks.

Factual Background:

The dispute arose when Mohammad Arshad, an individual registered the 'ZEPTO' trademark in 2014 under classes 9 and 35, covering services related to advertising, wholesale and retail outlets, and mobile phone accessories in class 35. Despite the registration, Arshad failed to provide credible evidence to substantiate his claim of the mark’s use, supposedly since 2011.

Meanwhile, Kiranakart launched its Zepto app in 2021 and began using the 'ZEPTO' trademark extensively across India. As the prior registrant, Arshad opposed Kiranakart’s trademark application for the same in class 35, consequently prompting Kiranakart to file a rectification petition under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and seeking cancellation of Arshad’s mark due to non-use of the same.

Procedural Background & Reasoning of the Court: 

The Delhi High Court issued notice and while Arshad initially appeared on September 25, 2024, he later stopped attending hearings, failing to file any defense or contest the case, despite multiple opportunities. The Petitioner presented strong evidence of its widespread use and promotion of the ‘ZEPTO’ mark, while also demonstrating that Arshad had not used the mark for over 8 years. The court referred to Section 47(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, which provides for the removal of a registered trademark if it is not used for a continuous period of at least 5 years. While placing reliance on precedents such as DORCO Co. Ltd. v. Durga Enterprises, the Court emphasized that a trademark must be actively and genuinely used for the registered services. In its reasoning, the Court found that Kiranakart had been using the 'ZEPTO' mark extensively for its services since 2021, thereby building significant brand recognition and goodwill. On the contrary, the Arshad had not used the mark in Class 35 for a continuous period exceeding five years, making the same liable for cancellation under Section 47(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act.

The Court also noted that since Arshad failed to contest the case, the allegations of non-use were deemed admitted, further solidifying Kiranakart’s claims. To that extent, the Company presented substantial proof of its promotion and use of the mark vide print, television, digital and outdoor campaigns, thereby establishing goodwill and reputation, whereas Arshad failed to provide any evidence to counter these claims.

Decision:

The Court ruled that Arshad’s 'ZEPTO' trademark was merely a block on the Register of Trade Marks and that its continued presence hindered Kiranakart's business, which had built substantial goodwill and reputation owing to its continued market presence. The judgment emphasized that trademarks should not be used as tools for anti-competitive behavior, labeling Arshad's opposition to Kiranakart’s application as vexatious. It further stressed on the risks of neglecting trademark usage, noting that “The petitioner has continuously and extensively been using the ZEPTO marks since July 2021 in India and, by virtue of their widespread advertisement and promotion, has acquired immense goodwill and reputation thereunder. On the other hand, the respondent no.1 has not made any use the impugned mark in relation to the aforesaid services in class 35. Despite the aforesaid, the respondent no.1 opposed the petitioner’s application for the mark ZEPTO in class 35. Considering the aforesaid, I am of the view that the petitioner is aggrieved by the continued subsistence of the impugned mark on the Register of Trade Marks.”

Accordingly, it ordered the removal of the trademark ‘ZEPTO’ (Registration Number 2773519) in Class 35 from the Trade Marks Register and directed the Trade Marks Registry to cancel the registration and dispose of all pending applications, emphasising the importance of protecting bona fide proprietors from a bad faith registration or an entry wrongly remaining on the Register due to wrong user claim or non use. 

Conclusion

Time and again, Courts have been striving to underscore the importance of genuine intent and continuous use of trademarks in order to maintain rights over them. In the current legal landscape, mere prior adoption is insufficient; there must be proof of ongoing use of the mark. To address this, India could explore the adoption of a system akin to that of the United States, which mandates registered trademark owners to periodically provide evidence of commercial use. This would help prevent dormant trademarks from obstructing the registration of active and bona fide trademarks.

This ruling reinforces that trademark registrations are not permanent and that even much subsequently, their validity can be legally challenged, thus making non-use cancellation a key tool in ensuring that the Register remains uncluttered, accurate and reflective of actual business activity.

References:

1. Kiranakart Technologies (P) Ltd. v. Mohd. Arshad, C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 62 of 2024

2. DORCO Co. Ltd. v. Durga Enterprises (2023 SCC OnLine Del 1484)

3. Goodai Global Inc v. Shahnawaz Siddiqu & Anr. C.O. (Comm.Ipd-Tm) 81/2024 & I.A. 1681/2025