Summary
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Kiranakart Technologies Private Limited (Zepto) in an ex-parte proceeding and directed the removal of the trademark ‘ZEPTO’ registered in Class 35 under the name of Mohammad Arshad. The case underscored the principle that trademarks is to be actively used to maintain validity.
Background
Kiranakart Technologies, a leading quick commerce startup, operates under the ZEPTO brand. Kiranakart offers instant consumer goods delivery services for 7000+ products in 20+ categories through its state-of-the-art mobile application, ZEPTO. Kiranakart has held trademark registrations in multiple classes, i.e. 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 39 and 43. However, when it sought to register ‘ZEPTO’ in Class 35, covering advertising, wholesale, and retail services, it faced opposition from Mohammad Arshad, who held an earlier registration for the same mark. Kiranakart filed a rectification petition under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking the cancellation of Arshad’s mark on the ground of non-use.
Kiranakart filed a rectification petition under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, before the Delhi High Court, seeking cancellation or removal of the trademark ‘ZEPTO’ bearing no. 2773519 in class 35 on the ground of non-use.
Court’s Analysis
The core issue before the Court was whether Arshad’s mark should be removed from the register due to non-use. Despite being served notice, the respondent neither appeared in any hearing nor filed a response, leading the Court to proceed ex-parte. The Court relied on various precedents, where trademarks were removed due to the proprietors’ failure to establish commercial use. In various cases, the courts held that mere registration does not grant indefinite rights unless the mark is genuinely used in trade. The Delhi High Court applied the same reasoning here, concluding that the respondent’s registration served no legitimate commercial purpose and was merely blocking the petitioners’ rights.
Court’s Order
The Court allowed the Petition and directed the Trade Marks Registry to remove the mark ‘ZEPTO’ (Application No. 2773519) from the register under Section 47(1)(b). This decision, based solely on the petitioner’s submissions due to the respondent’s absence, reinforced the importance of active trademark use and served as a warning against holding trademarks without a genuine intent to trade.
Take-away for the Readers
The Court held that mere registration does not grant indefinite rights unless the mark is actively used. Since Arshad failed to provide any defense, and his actions including opposing Zepto’s trademark application appeared to be obstructive rather than commercially justified, the Court ordered the removal of the ‘ZEPTO’ mark (Application No. 2773519) from the Trade Marks Register under Section 47(1)(b) of the Act. The judgment reinforces the necessity of active trademark use and serves as a warning against holding trademarks without a genuine intent to trade.
Citation: Kiranakart Technologies Private Limited v. Mohammad Arshad & Anr., C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 62/2024 (H.C. Delhi Mar. 3, 2025). Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/178740481/
Article Author: T K Tushar
Article and Accessibility Review: Naika Salaria