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 \u2018ZEPTO\u2019 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\u2019s mark on the ground of non-use.<\/p>\n
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 \u2018ZEPTO\u2019 bearing no. 2773519 in class 35 on the ground of non-use.<\/p>\n
The core issue before the Court was whether Arshad\u2019s 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<\/em>. The Court relied on various precedents, where trademarks were removed due to the proprietors\u2019 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\u2019s registration served no legitimate commercial purpose and was merely blocking the petitioners\u2019 rights.<\/p>\n The Court allowed the Petition and directed the Trade Marks Registry to remove the mark \u2018ZEPTO\u2019 (Application No. 2773519) from the register under Section 47(1)(b). This decision, based solely on the petitioner\u2019s submissions due to the respondent\u2019s absence, reinforced the importance of active trademark use and served as a warning against holding trademarks without a genuine intent to trade.<\/p>\n 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\u2019s trademark application appeared to be obstructive rather than commercially justified, the Court ordered the removal of the \u2018ZEPTO\u2019 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.<\/p>\nCourt’s Order<\/h4>\n
Take-away for the Readers<\/h5>\n