The Delhi High Court recently ruled in favor of Kiranakart Technologies Private Limited, the company behind the quick-commerce platform Zepto, by ordering the removal of the ‘ZEPTO’ trademark registered in the name of Mohammad Arshad. The court’s decision came after it found that Arshad had failed to demonstrate any genuine use of the mark despite holding the registration for years. The case was heard by a single-judge bench of Justice Amit Bansal, who concluded that the continued presence of Arshad’s mark on the Trade Marks Register was unjustified.

Kiranakart Technologies approached the court after facing opposition from Arshad while attempting to register the ‘ZEPTO’ mark under Class 35, which covers services related to advertising, retail, and wholesale outlets. Arshad had secured the registration for ‘ZEPTO’ in 2014, claiming prior use since 2011, and had registered it under Classes 9 and 35 for services including mobile accessories and retail trade.

However, Kiranakart argued that Arshad had never actually used the mark in connection with these services and had merely kept the registration as a barrier to prevent others from obtaining it. The company further contended that ‘ZEPTO’ had become exclusively associated with its business since July 2021, given its extensive branding, marketing, and commercial presence in the quick-commerce industry.

The court observed that Arshad had neither filed a reply to the rectification petition nor appeared for hearings, effectively leaving Kiranakart’s claims unchallenged. Justice Bansal noted that trademark law mandates the removal of marks that remain unused for a continuous period of five years, stating, “A trademark must serve its essential function of distinguishing goods and services in commerce. If it lies dormant for years, it ceases to have any justification for its presence on the register.”

The court found that Kiranakart had furnished substantial proof of its use of the mark, whereas Arshad failed to present any evidence demonstrating commercial use of ‘ZEPTO’ in connection with the services under Class 35.

The court also took into account an affidavit from an independent investigating agency that confirmed the non-use of the mark by Arshad for nearly eight years. Given this, Justice Bansal observed, “A trademark registration should not serve as a mere placeholder. When a mark is not put to genuine use, it becomes an unjustified burden on the register and an obstacle to legitimate businesses.”

Kiranakart had argued that Arshad’s opposition to its trademark application was not only baseless but also a deliberate attempt to delay its registration. The company maintained that its continuous and exclusive use of ‘ZEPTO’ had resulted in substantial goodwill and brand recognition across India. With its rapid expansion and widespread customer base, Kiranakart asserted that the mark was now synonymous with its business. The court found merit in this claim and noted that allowing the outdated registration to persist would create an unnecessary hindrance to Kiranakart’s operations.

Concluding the matter, the Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Kiranakart and directed the removal of Arshad’s ‘ZEPTO’ trademark from the register. Justice Bansal emphasized, “Trademark law protects genuine commercial use, not passive ownership. A mark that remains unused for years should not impede a thriving business.” With this decision, Kiranakart secured the exclusive rights to ‘ZEPTO’ under Class 35, reinforcing its position in the quick-commerce market while eliminating a legal roadblock in its expansion.

Case Title: KIRANAKART TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED versus MOHAMMAD ARSHAD & ANR.

Advocates for Petitioner: Ms. Shruti Baid, Mr. Aman Sagar, Mr. Anmol Kasana, Advocates.

Advocates for respondent:Ms. Radhika Bishwajit Dubey, Ms. Gurleen Kaur Waraich, Mr. Kritarth Upadhyay.